Model essay on defense beyond limitation of action 1
Respondent: Wang XX, male, born on XX, XXX, Han nationality, soldier.
Respondent: Wu X.
Respondent: Wu X.
According to the defendant's indictment, the defense is as follows:
This case happened on March 4th, 20xx 14, for personal injury compensation.
According to the General Principles of the Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and the relevant provisions of the Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the limitation of action for claiming personal injury compensation is 1 year. The limitation of action shall be counted from the date when the parties know or should know that their rights have been infringed, and shall be interrupted when the creditor makes a request, brings a lawsuit or the debtor agrees to perform his obligations.
The defendant reported the case to the police on the spot. On March 22nd, Wu Chunxia, the infringer, was identified as schizophrenic and had no criminal responsibility at the time of committing the crime.
According to article 18 of China's criminal law? A mental patient who causes harmful results when he can't identify or control his own behavior and is confirmed by legal procedures shall not bear criminal responsibility. ? And article 130 of the criminal procedure law? In the course of investigation, if it is found that the criminal suspect should not be investigated for criminal responsibility, the case shall be dismissed. ? Provisions of public security organs on revoking cases.
According to the second paragraph of Article 15 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Limitation System in the Trial of Civil Cases, if the public security organ, the people's procuratorate or the people's court decide not to file a case, dismiss the prosecution or not to prosecute, the limitation period shall be recalculated from the day when the obligee knows or should know not to file a case, dismiss the prosecution or not to prosecute.
The respondent in this case is very clear about his own infringement, the damage result, the compensation obligor and the case revoked by the public security organ, and there is no ignorance that his rights have been infringed.
The defendant sued the case on April 6, 20xx, and it has been more than two years since the case was committed or the case was withdrawn by the public security organ, far exceeding the statute of limitations.
The respondent refused to perform the obligation of compensation for the following reasons: Wu Chunxia, the infringer in this case, had been diagnosed as schizophrenia by the outpatient service before the incident, had a history of mental disorder for more than half a year, and his condition was extremely unstable.
There is no reason not to know that the infringer and the defendant live together. The infringer has shown hostility to the infringer many times, and the defendant knows it.
20xx March 14, on the morning of the incident, everyone was sleeping, and the respondents were no exception.
The infringer walked into the defendant's room and took the child away, which is directly related to the defendant's neglect of care for the child. Knowing that the infringer may infringe on children, the defendant left the door open at night and allowed the infringer to enter and leave the room at will, which was a major fault of the defendant.
According to the legal provisions of the principle of tort liability fault in China, the respondent shall bear the legal consequences.
To sum up, according to the provisions of the General Principles of Civil Law on limitation of action and tort liability, the respondent requests your hospital to reject the respondent's claim according to law.
I am here to convey
You county people's court
Respondent: Wang XX
Agent: Liu Xiaoping.
May 13th, two thousand xx.
Model essay on defense beyond the limitation of action II
Respondent: Hu * *
The reply to the case of the sales contract between the respondent and the respondent is as follows:
1. There is a sales contract relationship between the respondent and the respondent, but the respondent has paid all the money and fully fulfilled the contractual obligations, that is, the sales contract relationship between the two parties has been terminated, so please reject the respondent's claim according to law.
(a), the respondent submitted 20xx65438+February 7th? A return order? It is not a list of goods purchased by the respondent from the respondent, but a repayment form formed after the respondent and the respondent agreed to return the goods at a discount.
From the reasons and formal requirements of this list:
1. The place of formation of this manifest is the business premises of the respondent; It was the respondent who asked the respondent to pay for the goods on his own initiative;
2. What is the difference between this list and other lists? Delivery note? There are two obvious differences: the bottom of the bill of lading of 20xx year 65438+February 7th is not signed by the respondent, and other bills of lading are signed by the respondent; What's the title of the list? Delivery note? Did you change it? A return order? The change is made by the respondent.
Combined with the reasons and formal requirements of the manifest, it can be confirmed that the list formed by the respondent and the respondent is not the respondent's purchase list, but the respondent's return list to the respondent;
(2) The respondent began to engage in shrimp farming business in 20xx, and after settling the payment with the respondent on February 7th, 20xx, the respondent ended his business in Chonglou Bajia, Taishan City and returned to his hometown in Jinyun. On February 7th, 20xx 65438, the Respondent also heard that the Respondent was going to close down and go home, so it asked the Respondent to pay.
After that, the respondent paid off part of the debt after returning the remaining materials according to the actual situation, and the remaining money was paid in cash.
To sum up, the 20 12 12+7 February bill of lading formed by the respondent and the respondent is not? Delivery note? , but a copy? A return order? On February 7, 20 1265438, the respondent had settled all the payment, so the contractual relationship between the two parties was a sale contract, but the contractual relationship was terminated after the respondent paid the payment on February 7, 20 1265438, so the respondent claimed that the payment was still owed.
Two, the statute of limitations in this case has expired, and the claim shall be rejected according to law;
20xx65438+February 7th was the last contact between the defendant and the defendant, and 20xx65438+February 7th was formed by the defendant and the defendant? A return order? That is to say, after the oral settlement between the two parties, the respondent offset part of the payment by returning the goods, which can prove that the two parties settled the final payment on February 7, 20xx 65438. Therefore, according to Article 135 of the General Principles of Civil Law, the statute of limitations in this case has expired, so please reject the respondent's application according to law.
To sum up, this case should be rejected according to law, whether it is the fact that the respondent has paid the payment in full in entity or the limitation of action has passed in procedure. Therefore, we urge the court to reject the application according to law.
Authorized Agent: Hu * *
20XX April 20th
Model essay on defense beyond the limitation of action 3
Respondent: Zheng, female, born on.
Client: Pang, State Law Firm.
Respondent: Zhou, male, born on.
In the case of being told that the defendant had a dispute over private lending, the defendant now pleads as follows:
1. The respondent is not the actual borrower of this case, and it is wrong for the respondent to list the respondent as the defendant of this case.
The written debt submitted by the respondent does not have the signature of the respondent, and the respondent has no evidence to prove that the respondent is the actual borrower of the money, so the debt has nothing to do with the respondent, and the respondent is not the borrower.
It is wrong for the defendant to list the respondent as the defendant in this case. If the respondent has no right to demand repayment from the respondent, it shall reject all the claims of the respondent against the respondent.
2. The defendant's statement is untrue. Even if Cheng borrows money from the Respondent, the debt does not belong to the joint debt of husband and wife, and the Respondent does not have to bear any repayment responsibility.
Before receiving the corresponding litigation materials sent by your institute, the respondent was unaware of the occurrence of the loan. The amount owed by the respondent reached 800,000 yuan, but the respondent had never seen such a huge sum. The respondent has never heard of the loan from beginning to end, and has not reached an agreement with Cheng that the loan is a joint debt. The respondent has no evidence to prove that the loan is used for the joint operation of the respondent or its income is used for the common life of the respondent. Therefore, the debt does not belong to the joint debt of husband and wife, and the respondent does not have to bear any repayment responsibility. There is no factual and legal basis for the respondent to claim repayment from the respondent, and its claim shall be rejected.
To sum up, the respondent is not a qualified defendant in this case, and this debt does not belong to the same debt. The respondent claims that there is no factual and legal basis for repayment to the respondent, and requests the court to find out the facts of the case and reject the respondent's claim.
I am here to convey
_ _ _ _ City _ _ District People's Court
Defendant: _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _