Study Of The Cases On The Validity Of Factoring Contract With False Accouts Receivable

Through the "conservation" as the key word and the case limit to "contract dispute",the Chinese refereeing paper network searched and found 3,974 related documents.After selecting the top 200 judgments for research,the case was involved in the case.The problem of determining the validity of the factoring contract when the account is false is to study the standard selection of“false receivables and factoring contract validity".The Supreme Court(2014)Min Er Zhong Zi No.271,(2014)Er Zhongmin Chu Zi No.06051 and(2015)Zhong Zhong Fa Min Er Chu Zi No.2,the case involves false receivables.The creditor's rights and the focus of the case disputes include the impact of false debt collection on the validity of the factoring contract and the civil liability of the parties.The court finally gave three different judgments,covering the court's false acceptance in judicial practice.The main results of the judgments on the validity of the accounts and factoring contracts are typical and representative.The parties' disputes focus on three issues,namely,whether the false receivables cause the factoring contract to be invalid,and the legal effect of the debtor's non-objection promise to the bank to waive the right of defense and the right of set-off and the factoring of the bank.The issue of the responsibility for the return of loans.By analyzing the focus of the case,and combining with the actual analysis of the difference between China's bank factoring and foreign developed factoring business,we will encourage the bank to develop factoring business and promote the financing of SMEs.The unity of the proposal is suggested to be clear in the form of judicial interpretation:First,the falsehood of accounts receivable does not affect the effectiveness of the factoring contract.Second,the debtor's false confirmation of false receivables and its pledge to waive the right of set-off and defense of the bank does not constitute a major misunderstanding,and the debtor's no-objection promise is valid.In addition,in order to prevent financial risks and strengthen the bank's auditing obligations,it is necessary to carry out the civil infringement legislation that violates the audit obligation,and the court can reduce the debtor's part of the accounts receivable according to the bank's fault degree.Repayment responsibility.