论文部分内容阅读
对违反村集体民主议定原则的合同效力,法律上没有明确规定。司法实践中的法院判决对合同效力认定不一,没有一致标准,而且主要是基于民主议定规定的强制性规定性质进行审查。由于民主议定规定规制的是村集体的决议行为,并不直接规制村集体对外签订的合同,因此更宜将其认定为管理性强制规定,而非效力性强制规定。村集体组织违背民主议定原则签订的合同,本质上是一种越权代表行为。当村集体组织从事营利活动,相对人为善意,不知道也不应当知道村集体组织超越代表权限时,合同有效;当村集体组织从事非营利活动,以及相对人为恶意,知道或应当知道村集体组织超越代表权限时,合同效力待定。
The contract is not legally clear for any contract that violates the principle agreed upon by the village collective democracy. Court judgments in judicial practice have different opinions on the effectiveness of the contract, there is no uniform standard, and the review is mainly based on the mandatory nature of the democratic agreement. Since the democratic agreement stipulates the resolution of the village collective, it does not directly regulate the contract signed by the village collective. Therefore, it is more appropriate to consider it as a mandatory regulation rather than an ineffective one. The contract signed by the village collective organization in violation of the principle agreed upon by the democratic parties is essentially a kind of over-represented act. When the village collective organization is engaged in profit-making activities, the relatives are goodwill, do not know and should not know that the village collective organization surpasses the representative authority, the contract is valid. When the village collective organization is engaged in non-profit activities and the relative people are malicious, it knows or should know the village collective organization Beyond the delegate authority, the contract is to be determined.