Judicial Interpretation of the General Provisions of the Civil Code | Interpretation of "Major Misunderstandings"

Published:

2022-03-09

The Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the General Provisions of the the People's Republic of China Civil Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Judicial Interpretation of the General Provisions of the Civil Code") was adopted at the 1861st meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court on December 30, 2021 and will come into force on March 1, 2022. The judicial interpretation of the general provisions of the civil code is an in-depth and detailed interpretation of the ten chapters in the general provisions of the first part of the civil code. It is an interpretation formulated by the Supreme People's court in order to correctly hear civil cases, protect the legitimate rights and interests of civil subjects according to law, and maintain social and economic order, in accordance with the the People's Republic of China civil code, the People's Republic of China civil procedure law and other relevant laws and regulations, combined with trial practice. Articles 19 and 20 of the Judicial Interpretation of the General Provisions of the Civil Code are the interpretations of major misunderstandings in Article 147 of the Civil Code. With the continuous development of the theory and practice types of civil legal acts, the understanding and scope of application of "major misunderstandings" have also changed. This article will start from the "Judicial Interpretation of the General Provisions of the Civil Code" to interpret "major misunderstandings. Historical changes in relevant provisions of 1. major misunderstandings General Principles of the People's Republic of China Civil Law (2009 Amendment) (Expired) Article 59 A party shall have the right to request a people's court or an arbitration organ to modify or cancel the following civil acts: The perpetrator of the (I) has a major misunderstanding of the content of the act; (II) is obviously unfair. A revoked civil act shall be null and void from the beginning of the act. Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Implementation of the General Principles of the the People's Republic of China Civil Law (for Trial Implementation) (Expired) 71. If the perpetrator's misunderstanding of the nature of the act, the other party, the variety, quality, specification and quantity of the subject matter makes the consequences of the act contrary to his own meaning and causes greater losses, it may be considered a major misunderstanding. 73. If the parties request a change in a major misunderstanding or obviously unfair civil act, the people's court shall change it; if the parties request a revocation, the people's court may, as appropriate, change or revoke it. The people's court shall not protect a civil act that can be changed or revoked if the party concerned requests to change or revoke it more than one year from the time of its establishment. 77. The meaning is conveyed by the obligation of a third party, and if the third party causes damage to others due to negligence or failure to convey, the meaning person may generally be liable for compensation. However, unless otherwise provided by law or otherwise agreed by both parties. the People's Republic of China Civil Code Article 147 The perpetrator of a civil juristic act committed on the basis of a material misunderstanding shall have the right to request a people's court or an arbitration institution to cancel it. Guidelines for the Operation of Litigation Operations in Civil Contract Dispute Cases Article 11 The examination of whether a major misunderstanding is constituted shall be conducted in the following aspects: (I) whether the counterparty to the contract has a major misunderstanding of the nature of the contract, the type, quantity, quality, and consequences of the subject matter; Whether the (II) misunderstanding was caused by the misunderstood party itself and not by fraud or improper influence on the other party; whether the counterparty to the contract made the wrong meaning as a result of a material misunderstanding; and whether the misunderstanding directly affected the rights and obligations of the misunderstood party. Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the General Provisions of the the People's Republic of China Civil Code Article 19 If the perpetrator has a wrong understanding of the nature of the act, the other party or the variety, quality, specification, price, quantity, etc. of the subject matter, according to the usual understanding, if the wrong understanding does not occur, the perpetrator will not make a corresponding expression of intention, the people's court may determine that it is a major misunderstanding as stipulated in Article 147 of the Civil Code. If the perpetrator can prove that there was a major misunderstanding in the implementation of the civil legal act and request the revocation of the civil legal act, the people's court shall support it in accordance with the law; however, unless it is determined that the perpetrator has no right to request revocation based on transaction habits. Article 20 If the perpetrator requests the revocation of a civil juristic act on the ground that his will expresses the existence of a third party's transmission error, the provisions of Article 19 of this Interpretation shall apply. Interpretation of the current judicial interpretation of 2. major misunderstandings Definition of (I) "Major Misunderstanding" Article 71 of the "People's Opinions": "The perpetrator's misunderstanding of the nature of the act, the other party, the variety, quality, specification, and quantity of the subject matter makes the consequences of the act contrary to his own meaning and causes greater losses., Can be considered a major misunderstanding." The invalid "People's Opinions" summarized that it was identified as a "major misunderstanding", which was a misunderstanding that made the consequences of the behavior contrary to its own meaning and caused greater losses. The first paragraph of Article 19 of the Judicial Interpretation of the General Provisions of the Civil Code is amended to read, in accordance with the usual understanding, that if the wrong understanding does not occur, the perpetrator will not make a corresponding intention. This amendment not only perfects the expression of "contrary to meaning", but also reasonably deletes "causing loss. 1. "Major misunderstanding" itself is a kind of meaning expression, which is made on the basis of wrong understanding. If there is no "wrong" understanding, it will not be based on "error" and "meaning". Therefore, whether or not to cause a large loss can not be the basic element to judge whether it constitutes a major misunderstanding, from the result of the act to extrapolate the nature of the act itself is a logical reversal, so that some of the wrong understanding to make the corresponding meaning but did not produce the corresponding loss of the act can not be characterized. 2. If the wrong understanding does not occur, the actor will not make the corresponding understanding. First of all, the wrong understanding is the nature of the error rather than the value of the error. The nature error includes the nature of the act, the other party or the subject matter of the variety, quality, specification, price, quantity and other objective existence of the wrong judgment, and personal value judgment is not included. Example: Wang's husband, Li, died in a traffic accident on the way to send Zhang a driver's license. Zhang mistakenly thought that he should bear tort liability for Li's death, so he signed an economic compensation agreement with Wang for 200000 yuan. After Zhang fulfilled part of the payment, he found that he had a misunderstanding of the law. In fact, he did not have to bear any legal responsibility for Li's death, so he did not agree to fulfill the obligation of payment. The court of second instance held that the agreement between Zhang and Wang was valid, "and Zhang's personal value judgment, that is, the wrong understanding of the law, was not a major misunderstanding, and accordingly rejected Zhang's appeal request. Secondly, according to the principle of "interpretation precedes error", according to the rules of interpretation of meaning, combined with the objective situation and specific background at the time of the act, to confirm the normative meaning of the expression of the act, if the normative meaning is inconsistent with the inner meaning of the meaning of the person, it constitutes a major misunderstanding. For example, a Tmall store mistakenly set the navel orange of "4500g in 26 yuan" to "4500kg in 26 yuan" due to operational errors. Millions of orders were formed overnight. After a large number of buyers placed orders, they complained to the Tmall platform on the grounds that the store did not deliver the goods on time, resulting in the deposit of the store being deducted and closed. The buyer agreed to the seller's offer and made a valid commitment to establish a 26 yuan 4500kg navel orange sales contract between them, but the seller established a major misunderstanding and had the right to cancel the contract. Finally, the exclusion of "misinformation does not harm the true meaning" and "narrowly motivated errors. "Miscarriage does not harm the true meaning" means that the parties have reached an agreement on the expression of meaning, just because the expression or expression is wrong, such as the wrong use of words is not a major misunderstanding. Example: A and B agreed that A would sell 100 tons of whale meat to B. The written contract signed by the two parties stated: "A sells 100 tons of Haakjoringskod to B." "Haakjoringskod" is Norwegian and means "shark meat", but both A and B entered into the written contract with the word meaning "whale meat". It can be determined by explanation that A and B agree that A sells whale meat to B, not shark meat. Although the written contracts of A and B used the wrong words, "miscarriage does not harm the true meaning", A and B established a 100-ton whale meat sales contract instead of a 100-ton shark meat sales contract. Similarly, "error of motive in the narrow sense" means that the motive is not part of the content of the legal act, and if the content of the meaning is not wrong, the mere error of the inner cause (motive) of the meaning is not a major misunderstanding. Example: The buyer heard that a house somewhere will open the subway in two years, and then it will appreciate significantly (hearsay, not the developer's promise), so he decided to buy the house. In fact, the subway will not be opened in two years. The buyers feel that they have misunderstood the house and asked to return it. At this time, the buyer cannot ask to check out on the grounds of major misunderstanding, because this is only the wrong motive for buying a house, and the civil law does not protect the motive. (II) "trading habits" Article 19, paragraph 2, of the Judicial Interpretation of the General Provisions of the Civil Code also lists "trading habits" as an exception to the right to release major misunderstandings, and cautiously and creatively uses "trading habits" as an auxiliary line of judgment to determine whether they constitute a major misunderstanding. In considering whether a civil juristic act constitutes a "material misunderstanding", the context of the conclusion of the contract, the overall economic situation and other factors should be taken into account. For example, in the classic case, we discussed drinking a bottle of mineral water in the hotel. The guests thought it was a gift and the hotel thought it was consumption. We should consider the objective rules when judging. If it is now, the hotel will give away two bottles of water, which is also a common phenomenon. Although there is no written contract agreement, it is already a common standard for hotel accommodation agreements, and there is no major misunderstanding. Admittedly, to take a step back, even 20 years ago, there was no general rule for hotels to give away mineral water. In the absence of agreement between the two parties, it was neither a gift nor consumption. The act of picking up mineral water to drink could not constitute a promise. There was no intention to buy water. The contract was not established and there was no "major misunderstanding". The Judicial Interpretation of the General Provisions of the Civil Code adds the exception of "trading habits" and lists "trading habits" separately, taking into account the objective environment and general understanding, as well as special industry norms and specific trading habits, such as the field of art trading. Although this new rule is not used as a basis for adjudication, it is reflected in the gist of adjudication in typical cases in practice. (2011) Bai Minchu Zi No. 2694 Case Judgment Summary The buyer and the seller have confirmed the pictures and objects of the artwork before signing the contract for the sale of the artwork. In the whole transaction process, the seller has not made any evaluation, judgment and commitment to the manufacturing age and material of the artwork. Because the folk trade of art depends to a greater extent on the knowledge and experience of traders, its value depends on the spiritual needs of decoration and appreciation. Once the buyer decides to proceed with the transaction, it should be determined that the buyer does not constitute a material misunderstanding, even if the material or age of the artwork does not conform to his judgment. In this case, the buyer is not entitled to claim avoidance of the contract on the grounds of material misunderstanding. (III) the effect of "third person relaying wrong" behavior is consistent with "material misunderstanding" According to article 77 of the People's Republic of China, "The expression of intention is conveyed by the obligation of a third party, and if the third party causes losses to others due to negligence or failure to convey it, the person expressing the intention may generally be liable for compensation. Except as otherwise provided by law or otherwise agreed by both parties." This provision only allocates the responsibility for the loss arising from the "misrepresentation", establishes the principle that the person expressing the intention is liable for compensation, and the law provides otherwise or the parties agree otherwise as an exception to the allocation of responsibility, but does not give a clear characterization of the act of "misrepresentation. Article 20 of the Judicial Interpretation of the General Provisions of the Civil Code aligns the effect of the act of "third party conveying errors" with the "major misunderstanding" of Article 19. But it is worth noting that the third person to convey the error should be distinguished from the unauthorized agent. The third person's transmission error must be that the ideographic person expresses his intention to the third person to convey it. The third person's error in the process of transmission is unintentional, but the transmission effect of the error belongs to the ideographic person. In this case, the contract can be directly canceled according to major misunderstanding. According to the rule of unauthorized agency, the ideographic person can ratify the behavior of the unauthorized agent, A bona fide counterpart may exercise the right of reminder and revocation.

Key words: