According to Article 52 of People's Republic of China (PRC) Contract Law and General Principles of Civil Law, the scope of invalid contracts mainly includes:
1, a contract in which the actor has no capacity;
2, fraud, coercion and damage to the interests of the state contract;
3. Contracts that violate laws, public order and good customs (social and public interests);
4, malicious collusion, damage to the interests of the state, the collective or the third party contract;
5. Contracts that cover up illegal purposes in a legal form. The act of covering up illegal purposes in a legal form becomes an act of evading the law. The following elements are required:
1, illegal purpose evasion;
2. There are real illegal transactions;
This behavior violates the mandatory provisions of the law.
The parties to the contract take evasive actions, and then take a series of evasive measures to realize some illegal interests, evade the obligations stipulated by law, and adopt a seemingly legal form. This behavior must be subjective and intentional.
Related cases:
One year, the stock market was in a bull market stage, and a large amount of funds flocked to the stock market. At this time, Company A made a loan to the bank and asked Company B to be the guarantor.
The real purpose of company A's borrowing is to speculate in the stock market in order to make a profit in the stock market. Company A knows that the loan will review the purpose of the loan and understands that "bank loans are prohibited from being illegally transferred to the stock market, funds and other markets". Therefore, Company A stated in the column of the loan purpose of the loan contract that "the loan is used to purchase raw materials". The bank understands the real intention of Company A, but still agrees to grant a loan of 2 million yuan to Company A according to the loan contract.
After Company A suffered serious losses and was unable to repay the loan, the bank sued Company B for undertaking the guarantee responsibility. After investigation and evidence collection by lawyers of Company B, the above facts were discovered. During the trial, it was put forward that Company A colluded with the bank maliciously to defraud Company B's guarantee, and the guarantee contract was invalid, and Company B was not responsible for the guarantee. The court finally adopted the defense opinion of the lawyer of Company B. ..
Extended data:
Relevant laws and regulations:
Article 40 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Guarantee Law in the Supreme People's Court, the debtor of the main contract uses fraud, coercion and other means to make the guarantor provide a guarantee against the true meaning. If the creditor knows or should know the facts of fraud and coercion, it shall be handled in accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of the Guarantee Law.
Article 30 of the Guarantee Law is under any of the following circumstances, the guarantor shall not bear civil liability:
(a) the parties to the main contract collude to defraud the guarantor to provide a guarantee;
(two) the creditor of the main contract uses fraud, coercion and other means to make the guarantor provide a guarantee against the true meaning.