On The Nature And Validity Of Pay A Debt In Kind

With the rapid economic development of our country,lending and financing activities between people are also more frequent,and the debt settlement agreement is more important as a way for people to pay off their debts.It is also more important to use the debt settlement agreement as a way for people to pay off their debts.In the process of handling such disputes,people found the following problems: scholars in theory and judges in judicial practice have not clearly defined the concept of debt-for-material agreement.With guarantees or liquidity contracts;Chinese existing legislative system does not provide for a debt-for-material system,which has led judges to make inconclusive judgments in the process of judging the nature and effectiveness of debt-for-debt agreements.In this article,when studying the agreement of debt-for-things,the relevant content will be developed according to the logic of the syllogism.There are four parts in the main research content of this article: The first part is to define the concept of the debt-for-material agreement.The content of this part mainly includes two aspects.On the one hand,it discusses the concept and constituent elements of the debt-for-material agreement,on the other hand,it studies the difference between the debt-for-debt agreement and similar concepts.The second part analyzes the nature of the debt-in-kind agreement.First of all,it analyzes whether the debt-in-kind agreement is a burden behavior or a disposition behavior,draws a conclusion that the debt-in-kind agreement is a burden behavior,and then analyzes the second aspect of its nature,that is to say,the agreement of debt in Rem belongs to the contract of acceptance or the contract of practice.The third part is about the validity analysis of the agreement of debt in kind: the first part is the analysis of the relationship between the new debt and the old debt,and the second part is the analysis of the debtor's incomplete performance of the new debt,then it analyzes the problem of the debtor's liability for guarantee against defects in other kinds of payment.Finally,according tothe newly issued Nine Minutes,based on the time before and after the expiration of the term of debt performance and the performance,this paper analyzes the validity of the agreement of debt repayment in kind under different circumstances.This paper holds that the agreement is invalid if the parties have not liquidated the debt before the expiration of the time limit for the performance of the debt,and that the agreement is valid if the parties have not liquidated the debt in kind after the expiration of the time limit for the performance of the debt.In the last part,putting forward some suggestions on the problems in the agreement of debt-for-goods,including four aspects:perfecting the legislation on the agreement of debt repayment in kind;reasonable application of the meaning of the interpretation rules;establishment of a system for reviewing the authenticity of debt-for-debt;and establishment of a complete post-relief system.