Study On The Case Of Bill Recourse Of Minsheng Bank V. Red Heron Company

Article 146 of the General Provisions of the Civil Law makes a distinction between "conspiracy hypocrisy" and "concealed behavior" to determine the validity of "conspiracy hypocrisy",and thus constructs the system of conspiracy hypocrisy in China’s civil law.Supreme People’s Bank of China,Nanchang Branch,No.41 Minsheng Bank,v.Red Heron Company Bill Claim Dispute Case is a model for the application of the system of conspiracy to false declaration of will.The parties have three controversial focuses around the case.First,what is the nature of the dispute?Non-ferrous metal companies,red Heron companies that non-ferrous metal companies to the Minsheng Bank of China Nanchang branch of the loan dispute,but also borrow new and old disputes.In fact,according to the evidence of this case,the actual legal relationship between Minsheng Bank Nanchang Branch and non-ferrous metal companies in this case should be the loan relationship,and the bill discount is only a specific financing method agreed by both sides.Secondly,is the Nanchang branch of Minsheng Bank legal bill holder? Minsheng Bank Nanchang branch believes that it fulfil the agreement according to law and enjoys the right of negotiable instruments.Red Heron company believes that Minsheng Bank Nanchang branch does not enjoy the right of bill.Because the actual legal relationship in this case is the relationship between borrowing and lending,and the bill act is only a means of financing,and is a conspiracy of all parties,the legal relationship of the bill involved in the bill act is invalid.Nanchang Branch of Minsheng Bank advocates that the bill right in this case should not be supported according to law.Finally,the responsibility of the case.There are two aspects of the responsibility bearer: first,whether the red Heron company should undertake the Liquidation Liability for this discounted cash.Red Heron company should not be held responsible for Daye Non-Ferrous Metals Co’s failure to return the loan to the case.The borrowing in this case was initiated by negotiation between Nanchang Branch of Minsheng Bank and non-ferrous metal company,and the premise of the actual borrowing was that the Nanchang Branch of Minsheng Bank provided the non-ferrous metal company with a credit line for the amount of the borrowing in this case.As the opening bank of the non-ferrous metal company,the Nanchang Branch of Minsheng Bank knew the non-ferrous metal company well.In this case,the Nanchang Branch of Minsheng Bank shall bear the risk of non-return ofthe loan to the non-ferrous metal company.The two is whether Rowley steel and Tao Huijun should be responsible for the payment of the cash.Based on Raleigh Steel and Tao Huijun’s original intention is to make guarantees for borrowing,so the guarantees are valid and should be liable for repayment of the loan.