The title comes from the Internet and belongs to the recall version

Analysis by Kong Xuanqing

The case is: An art master said on a TV show that if someone could make 5-layer hollow work, I presented my work to him, high-fived the host, and invited the audience to bear witness.

Those who use advertising statements to reward people who complete certain behaviors are reward advertisements. Reward advertisements are unilateral legal acts. Generally, reward advertisements are for one's own benefit. For example, two dogs raise If a dog is lost, a reward advertisement is posted, and whoever can bring the dog back will be given 10,000 yuan, etc.

Although the master's statement has no benefit to the master, he nevertheless promised in the form of a "unilateral promise" that whoever completes the fifth floor will pay for the previous works, and he also swore and testified. Therefore, This shows that the act of promising is a true expression of intention, and it is conveyed to the outside world as the true inner thoughts, so it is a true expression of intention.

It is a legal act of unilateral commitment, and the master has a payment obligation to the person who completes the act. Option D is the closest.

Of course, the motive is bragging, or overconfidently claiming that I am the best in the world, and is not subject to the jurisdiction of the law, so I will not comment.

Joking behavior?

Some coaching institutions believe that the above-mentioned master’s behavior is a joking behavior (Scherzerkl?rung). This view is debatable. Our country’s legislation does not provide for so-called joking behavior, but there is a large number of such phenomena in society.

It is a non-serious "expression of meaning" that can be recognized by (others), which means that such non-seriousness can be recognized, and such an expression of meaning is invalid (eine nicht ernst gemeinte Willenserkl?rung, die in dem Bewusstsein abgegeben wird, der Mangel an Ernstlichkeit werde nicht verkannt werden, ist nichtig).

Its essentials:

From the perspective of the expressive person, it is an unreal expression of meaning.

From the perspective of the counterparty, the counterparty also Knowing that his behavior is not serious,

To put it bluntly, it is a joke, and such a joke can be known to others.

From the above questions, we can see that it is impossible to conclude that the master is joking. On the other hand, the message conveyed to the outside world is to unquestionably fulfill his unilateral promises - witness and swear.

So this is not a joke.

Conclusion

The conclusion is that the answer should be option D, which is more appropriate. Sui cannot be said to be a reward advertisement for his own benefit in a pure sense, but it is indeed a legally binding unilateral promise. Behavior.

Error A, the unfair premise of taking advantage of others' danger does not exist now.

Error C, this topic is a unilateral act, not a legal act between two parties such as a donation.

Analysis of Kong Xuanqing

Xiao Zhang has been gifted and very smart since he was a child. Grandpa Lao Zhang loves his grandson (the first sentence is nonsense).

When Xiao Zhang was 6 years old, his grandfather gave Xiao Zhang a famous ancestral painting worth 2 million yuan (a gift to an incapacitated person is invalid and the legal act is invalid - not established).

After learning about this, the mother Liu firmly expressed her opposition (at this time, the gift cannot be an expression of intention on behalf of the recipient).

When Xiao Zhang was 8 years old, his grandfather gave Xiao Zhang his Omega watch worth 27,500 yuan. The status is suitable, the purely legal benefits are obtained and the neutral behavior is valid).

The mother Liu also clearly expressed her opposition (a valid legal act, which does not require legal representation).

Analysis of options

A. Grandpa’s act of donating the famous painting to Xiao Zhang is valid because of pure profit

B. Grandpa’s act of donating the famous painting to Xiao Zhang is valid The mother Liu objected and it was invalid

AB examination: Xiao Zhang was only 6 years old when he donated the famous painting. The donation was invalid, so AB's statements were all wrong. When a gift is given to an incapacitated person, it is invalid because of the lack of capacity, not because of the objection of the legal representative. AB error.

Note

The expression of intention of a person without capacity to act is invalid. For the legal actions of a person without capacity to act, his legal agent shall act on his behalf and accept the expression of intention on his behalf.

In the presence of the legal agent, financial payments to a person without capacity should still be made by the legal agent without express objection. This is similar to tolerating agency. In fact, the legal agent and the donor enter into a contract, which may occur. Potency.

C. Grandpa’s gift of the watch to Xiao Zhang is valid because of pure profit

D. Grandpa’s gift of the watch to Xiao Zhang is invalid due to the objection of his mother Liu

When giving a watch to Xiao Zhang, Xiao Zhang is a person with limited capacity for conduct, and the civil legal actions he engages in are of pending validity in principle, but the exceptions are as follows:

Note

Exception 1: A person with limited capacity for civil conduct engages in legal acts related to his or her age, identity, or daily life. Civil activities within this scope belong to the actor's regular participation and have developed considerable capacity for will, and there is no legal agent. Consent is necessary.

Exception 2: Civil legal acts that do not impose obligations on the actor. Because the law sets up a system of limited capacity to protect them from harm, only when a person with limited capacity is allowed to perform obligations will he suffer disadvantages.

If the "civil legal act that purely obtains legal benefits" or "neutral act without profit or loss" will not cause the actor to suffer any disadvantage, no legal representative or consent is required.

At this time, Xiao Zhang’s acceptance of the gift is purely legal and is valid. Therefore, C is correct. Once it is determined to be valid, it will not be affected regardless of the objection of his legal representative. D is wrong.

Question 3

This question examines the system of preemption of unowned property

First, the subject of preemption has no owner

None The main thing means that the thing does not belong to anyone now. Even if there was an owner before, the little wild boar got lost. After leaving the owner, the owner did not pursue it and allowed the little wild pig to wander in the wild, so it became an ownerless thing. Generally speaking, aquatic animals such as fish and shrimps in the sea and streams, as well as birds and animals in the mountains are ownerless things.

Second, the subject of pre-occupation must be movables

Third, possession must be with all intents

Third, the subject of pre-occupation must be possession with all intents The actor must have the intention to possess the subject property. The so-called possession means possession refers to the idea that the first occupier has possession as his own.

Fourth, the movable property pre-occupied must not be prohibited by law

The subject movable property that can be pre-occupied is limited to ownerless movable property, but some ownerless people living in the remote mountains and wilderness Wild animals are prohibited by law from being captured or hunted, so they cannot be used as objects of pre-occupation. In addition, ores are owned by the state, so they cannot be used as objects of pre-occupation.

Analysis question

The meteorite fell from the sky, it is an ownerless thing, and it is chattel. A possesses it with full intention and meets the first three requirements of possession. Whether the meteorite is an ore will be decided in the morning. Moreover, the ore recognized by legislation is based on the fact that ore on the ground belongs to the state and cannot be controlled by private parties. However, flying rocks from the sky are not bound by legislation. In addition, there are many public transactions of meteorites among the people, which are not prohibited by law. Therefore, it is not appropriate to determine that meteorites belong to " Ore", therefore Methyl acquired ownership in pre-occupation.

Note that B has no intention of preemption and does not acquire ownership based on preemption.

Therefore, option A is correct.

In fact, there are no requirements or requirements for studying civil law, they all have internal logic.

The secret of determining the right of lien

Creditor = possessor, whether the acquisition and possession of the creditor's rights are based on the same legal relationship (mostly the creditor's rights arising from the preservation of the subject matter).

Xu is a creditor and possessor of the company, but the acquisition of possession is based on the company's payment, while the acquisition of wage claims is based on his own labor payment, not on the same legal relationship.

Therefore, there is no issue of lien, so answer B is correct.

The statute of limitations applies to the claim for creditor's rights, which is 3 years, so CD is wrong.

C. Xu’s claim for a salary of 100,000 yuan from Company A is not subject to the limitation of the statute of limitations (wrong, the correct statement is - the statute of limitations applies).

D. Xu’s claim for a salary of 100,000 yuan from Company A is limited by the 2-year statute of limitations (wrong, the time error is not 2 years but 3 years).

This question examines the system of marriage law

1. Old man Zhang and Mr. Li are fathers. When Mr. Li dies, the marriage relationship ends.

2. Old man Zhang and He got married, and the house purchased after the marriage belongs to the couple.

Option A is wrong. The pension insurance money obtained during the marriage belongs to the couple.

Option D is correct. The house purchased after marriage belongs to Mr. Zhang and He. *** belongs to the couple. ***Same property. CB option is wrong.