II. Effectiveness evaluation of civil legal acts

Whether the civil subject makes a civil legal act through the expression of will produces the corresponding civil rights and obligations, which involves the evaluation of the effectiveness of the civil legal act. The effectiveness of civil juristic acts may be affected by whether the civil subject's civil capacity is sound, whether the expression of will is true, whether it violates the law and public order and good customs. In addition to being effective, civil legal acts also have other forms of effectiveness, such as pending effectiveness, revocability, invalidity and so on.

i. Effective civil legal act with complete elements

1. Legislation on the effective elements of civil legal acts

Different countries have adopted different ways to stipulate the provisions of effective elements in civil legal norms. From other countries and regions, there are few legislations that clearly stipulate the effective elements of civil legal acts. For example, Germany, Japan and Taiwan do not clearly stipulate the effective elements of legal acts, but reversely stipulate various situations that affect the effectiveness of legal acts. If a legal act does not have these situations, it should be effective; There are also some legislations that stipulate the effective elements from the front, such as France and Ukraine. At that time, the general principles of the civil law of China recognized that legal civil acts were civil legal acts, so in Article 55 "constitutive elements of civil legal acts", it is positively stipulated that: (1) the actor has corresponding civil capacity; (2) The expression of intention is true; (3) It does not violate the law or the public interest. Article 52 of the contract law stipulates in reverse that a contract is invalid, but item (5) of this article modifies item (3) of Article 55 of the general principles of the civil law as "not violating the mandatory provisions of laws or administrative regulations".

2. Article 143 of the Civil Code stipulates the elements for the validity of civil legal acts

In the legislative process, as for whether the effective elements of civil legal acts should be positively stipulated, some views believe that from the perspective of the legislation of major countries and regions in the world, those who positively stipulate the effective elements of legal acts are in the minority. For the legal act system that embodies the autonomy of expression of will, as long as it clearly stipulates the various types of defects and their effects of legal acts, legal acts outside these should be effective. Therefore, there is no need to stipulate the effective elements of legal acts positively. There are also views that China's general principles of civil law once stipulated the effective elements of civil legal acts. In practice, this provision plays a role in guiding the actor to correctly implement civil legal acts and realize autonomy of will, and this provision should continue to be retained. After repeated research, the latter view was adopted, and the effective elements of the act were stipulated in the section on the effectiveness of civil legal acts. At the same time, "do not violate public order and good customs" is added after "do not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations".

Therefore, it can be concluded that the evaluation of the effectiveness of civil legal acts, as far as the constituent elements are concerned, is mainly deconstructed and analyzed from the capacity of civil subjects, the true state of expression of will, laws and regulations, and the regulation of order and customs.

ii. Pending civil juristic act and revocable civil juristic act under the defect of constituent elements

1. Restricting a person with civil capacity to engage in civil legal acts that are inconsistent with his age, intelligence and mental health is a civil legal act with undetermined effectiveness.

According to Article 145 of the civil code, except for the civil legal act of pure benefit or the civil legal act corresponding to his age, intelligence and mental status, the civil legal act performed by the person with limited civil capacity requires the consent or ratification of his legal representative. Consent is the explicit recognition in advance, and ratification is the pursuit and recognition after the event. Before the consent or ratification of the legal representative, its effectiveness is in a pending state, and this state of uncertainty should not continue. Legislation gives the opposite party the right to urge, which can avoid the long-term continuation of this uncertain state of effect, so as to protect the rights and interests of the opposite party and maintain the security of transactions. If the legal representative does not express this, it means that the legal representative's attitude towards the validity of ratification is negative and laissez faire. At this time, it should be regarded as refusing ratification, so the act does not have legal effect.

For such civil legal acts performed by persons with limited capacity for civil conduct, if only the right of ratification of the legal representative is stipulated, the right to affirm or deny the effectiveness of the act is only exercised by the legal representative. Before the legal representative ratifies the act, the opposite person cannot make a choice about the effectiveness of the act according to his own rights and interests, and can only passively accept the ratification or denial of the legal representative, This is unfair to the counterpart, especially the goodwill counterpart. Therefore, it is necessary to give the opposite party the right to revoke in order to balance. It is worth noting that, unlike the cancellation right enjoyed by the obligee who has major misunderstanding, fraud, coercion and obvious unfairness, this article stipulates that the cancellation right holder can tell the other party by notice, rather than having to exercise it through litigation or arbitration, mainly because the reason for cancellation is very clear, and the other party is a person with limited civil capacity. If the other party is not a bona fide counterpart, it can only exercise the right of reminder, but not the right of cancellation.

2. Fraud, major misunderstanding and other "inaccurate expression of intention" civil legal acts are revocable civil legal acts.

The failure of the expression of will to express the actor's true intention, in addition to intentional behavior, may also be the actor's unintentional loss, which is the so-called error in the civil law (irrtum), which the author calls "inaccurate expression of will", and the common situations are fraud and major misunderstanding.

(1) If one party or a third party commits a fraudulent act and causes the other party to commit a civil legal act against its true intention, the fraudster has the right to request the people's court or an arbitration institution to revoke it.

Articles 148 and 149 of the civil code stipulate that a civil legal act in the case of "fraud" refers to an act in which one party deliberately informs the other party of a false situation, or deliberately conceals the true situation to induce the other party to make a wrong expression of intention. The constitutive elements of fraud generally include four items: first, the perpetrator must have the intention of fraud. Second, the actor must have fraudulent behavior. Third, the fraudster falls into an inner error or wrong judgment due to the fraudster's fraud, that is, there is a causal relationship between the fraud and the wrong judgment. Fourth, the fraudster made an expression of intention based on wrong judgment. In this process, the fraudster must be a party to the civil legal act. Because of the fraudster's fraud, he fell into a wrong judgment and made a declaration of intention accordingly.

However, the person who commits fraud may be a third party in addition to the parties to the civil legal act. The civil code adds a new case of fraud committed by a third party. The third party here generally refers to a specific person who has a certain relationship with one party other than the two parties to a civil legal act, such as helping one party to facilitate transactions and cheating the other party. Some scholars pointed out that some specific legal relationships should be excluded from a certain relationship, such as the agent and legal representative of the parties. If the agent or legal representative of the party commits fraud, it shall constitute that one party commits fraud, and no third-party fraud is established.

(2) For a civil legal act committed on the basis of a major misunderstanding, the perpetrator has the right to request the people's court or an arbitration institution to revoke it.

Article 147 of the Civil Code stipulates that a civil legal act under "major misunderstanding" refers to a civil legal act committed by a party due to its own fault and a major misunderstanding of the content of the civil legal act. Major misunderstanding is not a traditional concept of civil law. The corresponding concept in civil law countries is error, which is divided into errors in the stage of meaning formation and errors in the stage of meaning expression. Common law countries also adopt the concept of error, in which common law distinguishes between bilateral error and unilateral error. Whether to adopt the concept of "error" with reference to the legislation of civil law countries and regions in the legislative process. Some opinions pointed out that the general provisions should be consistent with the provisions of major countries and regions of the civil law system, adopt the concept of "error" in legislation, and try to clarify the connotation of "error". After research, the concept of major misunderstanding has been used in practice since the establishment of the general principles of civil law. It has been well known and mastered by the vast number of judicial practitioners and the people, and its connotation has been further clarified by the judicial interpretation, which is closer to the connotation of "error" in the civil law system. It is not inappropriate in the judicial practice, so the general principles of civil law and the provisions of the contract law can continue to be maintained.

As for the content of major misunderstanding, according to the provisions of Article 19 and Article 20 of the judicial interpretation of the general provisions of the civil code, it can be understood as: the perpetrator has a wrong understanding of the nature of the act, the variety, quality, specification, price, quantity, etc. of the opposite party or the subject matter, or the third party conveys an error. Compared with Article 71 of the opinions on the general principles of the people, the words "and caused great losses" are deleted. The intention behind the amendment can be understood as: if the ideograph finds that he has a major misunderstanding about the nature of the act, he should be allowed to revoke the Civil Legal Act implemented based on the major misunderstanding, and he does not have to wait until he causes great losses to enjoy such a right, so as to eliminate the impact of the event in the bud. If it has caused great losses, it is likely that the contract has been performed, and it is no longer necessary to cancel the contract. In the case of having caused great losses, because the major misunderstanding is caused by oneself, the losses should be borne by oneself. At this time, it is too late to request cancellation, unless the contract has not been performed. Rather than this, it is better to give the ideograph the right to cancel the contract when he knows the major misunderstanding. After the implementation of the civil code, the acting lawyer and the handling judge should pay attention to the constitutive elements of major misunderstandings.

3. Civil legal acts of "unfree expression of will" such as coercion and apparent unfairness are revocable civil legal acts.

In the process of the formation and expression of will, the actor may be unduly interfered by others: he may make a decision in ignorance due to fraud, he may make a decision against his will due to coercion, or he may make a decision in pain due to being taken advantage of by others in distress. All these cases are not the result of the actor's independent judgment, and cannot be attributed to the name of "free will", [10] the author calls it "the expression of will is not free". Common situations include coercion, including taking advantage of others' danger and obvious unfairness.

(1) If one party or a third party coerces the other party to commit a civil legal act against its true intention, the coerced party has the right to request the people's court or an arbitration institution to revoke it.

Article 150 of the Civil Code stipulates that a civil legal act under "coercion" refers to an act in which the perpetrator imposes ideological coercion on others through threats, intimidation and other illegal means, thereby causing others to have fear and express their will in fear. For specific situations in practice, Article 20 of the judicial interpretation of the general provisions of the Civil Code stipulates: "if a natural person and his close relatives are coerced to make a declaration of intention based on fear by causing damage to the personal rights, property rights and other legitimate rights and interests of natural persons and their close relatives, or by causing damage to the reputation, honor, property rights and interests of legal persons and unincorporated organizations, the people's court may recognize it as coercion as stipulated in Article 150 of the civil code."

(2) If one party takes advantage of the other party's situation of distress and lack of judgment, resulting in the apparent unfairness of the establishment of the civil legal act, the aggrieved party has the right to request the people's court or arbitration institution to revoke it.

Article 151 of the Civil Code stipulates that a civil legal act "obviously unfair" refers to an act that one party takes advantage of its own advantages or the other party is inexperienced and in a state of danger, resulting in an obvious imbalance of rights and obligations when the civil legal act is established and violating the principles of fairness and compensation for equal value. Generally, it has two elements: subjective and objective: the subjective element refers to the intention of one party to enter into a significantly unfair contract with the other party by taking advantage of its advantages or taking advantage of the other party's recklessness and inexperience when the legal act occurs. The objective element is the significant imbalance of interests when the civil legal act is established. Under the conditions of market economy, it is impossible to require absolute fairness in transactions, and it is normal to lose and earn. It is necessary to judge whether the imbalance of interests has reached a "significant" level by considering various factors such as supply and demand, price fluctuations and so on. Another elegant time reference system is that when the legal act is established, the fairness after the event belongs to the problem of business judgment, which is not within the scope of legal intervention.

The civil code includes taking advantage of a person's danger in the apparent unfairness. The legislative reason is: Although the apparent unfairness and taking advantage of a person's danger stipulated in the general principles of the civil law and the contract law have different emphases, from the definition of the two in relevant judicial practice, they have similar requirements in both subjective and objective aspects. For example, in the apparent unfairness, "one party obviously violates the principle of fairness and compensation for equal value", that is, it seriously damages the interests of the other party; "Making use of advantages or making use of the other party's inexperience" is similar to taking advantage of the other party's precarious means, both of which take advantage of the other party's adverse situation. Based on this, the combination of the two provisions gives a new connotation to the apparent unfairness, which is not only consistent with the general practice of legislation, but also convenient for judicial practice to strictly grasp and prevent the abuse of this system.

Summary: summarize the above-mentioned revocable civil legal acts, including fraud, major misunderstanding, coercion, and apparent unfairness. The changes of this civil code are: first, no longer distinguish the objects of fraud and coercion that damage interests. In the past, fraud and coercion that damaged national interests were invalid; Fraud or coercion that damages the interests of other civil subjects may be revoked. This removal is invalid, and all adjustments are revocable. Second, merge "taking advantage of others' danger" into the item of "obviously unfair". Third, the right of change shall be canceled and only the right of cancellation shall be granted. In combination with the provisions of the above-mentioned articles of the law, the cancellation right under fraud, major misunderstanding, coercion, and apparent unfairness shall be exercised through litigation or arbitration. In combination with the provisions of Article 152 of the civil code, the time limit for exercising the cancellation right under major misunderstanding is three months, and the time limit for exercising the cancellation right under fraud, coercion, and apparent unfairness is one year.

iii. Invalid civil juristic act

From the general principles of civil law in 1986 to the civil code in 2020, there have been provisions on invalid civil legal acts. The general trend is to more respect the autonomy of will between civil subjects and not easily deny the effectiveness of civil legal acts. The following timeline briefly shows the development and changes of legislation.

Below the timeline is the time of promulgation of legal documents and the number of clauses involved, and above is the specific situation of invalid civil legal acts in the clauses. Influenced by the civil code of the former Soviet Union, the general principles of civil law in 1986 has a strong color of state intervention, especially the provision of "covering up illegal purposes in legal forms", which directly inherits and transplants the civil code of the former Soviet Union; The economic contract violates the national directive plan, which is also the product of planned economy. Coincidentally, legal acts under fraud, major misunderstanding, coercion, and apparent unfairness were once defined as invalid legal acts. Coincidentally, articles 1109 to 1118 of the French civil code, which advocates freedom, also stipulate that the foregoing situation is invalid in principle. The French civil code does not abstract legal acts, but stipulates them in the first item "consent" of section II "elements for the effective establishment of contracts" of Chapter III "general provisions of contracts and consensual debts" of Part III "various methods of obtaining property". "Error, coercion or fraud" are all factors that affect the freedom or truth of "consent", thus giving the parties the right to declare void or cancel the contract. The former Soviet Union pursues state intervention, while France respects absolute freedom, but "all paths lead to the same goal". Under fraud and coercion, they are all stipulated as invalid legal acts, which is worthy of our more and deeper thinking on "the spirit of law", legal inheritance and transplantation, legislative sources and judicial practice!

Following and affecting the German civil code, the contract law of 1999 distinguishes fraud, major misunderstanding, coercion and apparent unfairness. The provisions that harm the interests of the state are invalid, and the provisions that harm the interests of other subjects are modifiable and revocable. In other cases, the provisions of the general principles of the civil law of 1986 shall continue. Subsequently, the two interpretations of the contract law limited the violation of "laws and regulations" to "violation of the mandatory provisions on the effectiveness of laws and administrative regulations". In principle, those who violate local regulations, administrative rules or administrative provisions of laws and administrative regulations do not deny the effectiveness of civil legal acts. Through the dimension of time, we can see the change process of the evaluation of civil legal acts under the defect of expression of will: the legal acts under fraud, major misunderstanding, coercion, and apparent unfairness have changed from the invalidity of the general principles of civil law to the modifiability and revocability of the contract law, and then to the revocability of the civil code. However, the evaluation and classification of invalid civil legal acts in the civil code are still analyzed from the perspective of civil subject, expression of will, violation of laws and regulations, etc.

1. A civil legal act performed by a person without civil capacity is invalid.

Article 144 of the Civil Code stipulates that civil legal acts performed by persons without civil capacity are invalid. According to the concept of autonomy in private law, the effectiveness of legal acts depends on the free will of the actor, and the possession of free will is marked by independent rational judgment ability. Beyond the field of judgment, there is no freedom of will. Therefore, the lack of judgment will affect the effectiveness of legal acts. The lack of judgment may be persistent, which will lead to the lack of behavioral ability. A person without capacity for conduct does not have any judgment ability in law and cannot perform any legal act. The legal acts of people without capacity are invalid, which actually closes the door for them to enter the field of legal communication. The purpose of this measure is to prevent incapacitated people from rushing into the risky communication world and hurting themselves. This also means that the protection for those with insufficient capacity is better than transaction security.

2. The civil legal act of false expression of will is invalid.

Article 146 of the civil code is about "false representation", which is a new addition to the formulation of the general provisions of the civil code in 2017, and is absorbed by the civil code. The legal concept of false expression of intention, also known as false expression, originated from the civil law of Germany and was later adopted by the civil law of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. The so-called false expression means that both the actor and the opposite party know that the meaning they express is not true, and conspire to make a meaning expression that is inconsistent with the true meaning. The characteristic of false expression is that both parties know that the meaning they express is not the true meaning, and the civil legal act itself lacks the meaning of effect. Both parties do not want this act to be truly legally effective.

Generally speaking, hypocrisy includes internal and external behaviors in structure: the external superficial behavior is the behavior that the two parties jointly make inconsistent with the true meaning, which can also be called camouflage behavior; The internal hidden behavior is the behavior that is hidden under the surface behavior and reflects the true meaning of both parties, which can also be called non disguised behavior. For example, common in judicial practice are "named shares and real debts", "named sales and real loans" (financial trade), "named sales and real gifts" and "named financial leasing and real loans". According to this article of the civil code, hypocrisy is invalid, and the concealment behavior is not invalid. Its effectiveness should be dealt with according to the relevant legal provisions. If the concealment behavior meets the effective requirements of the behavior, it can take effect.

3. A civil legal act in which the actor and the counterpart maliciously collude to damage the legitimate rights and interests of others is invalid

Article 154 of the Civil Code stipulates "malicious collusion". The so-called malicious collusion refers to the civil legal act that the actor and the counterpart collude with each other to harm the legitimate rights and interests of others in order to seek benefits. The actions of both parties are obviously illegal and should be given a negative evaluation. This clause originates from Article 58 of the general principles of the civil law and item (2) of Article 52 of the contract law, but changes the term "state, collective or third party" to "others". Therefore, the difference between this clause and the previous "invalid civil juristic act" is that a third party other than the subject of the parties filed to confirm the invalidity of the juristic act. For example, the creditor, as a third party, learned that the debtor transferred the property to the assignee free of charge or at a low price in order to avoid the debt; The creditor, as a third party, learned that the shareholder of the debtor company held a shareholders' meeting to resolve the branch in order to reduce the company's liability property.

In trial practice, the third party claims that the parties collude maliciously, and often encounters difficulties in adducing evidence. In this regard, You can refer to: "In such cases, it is mainly through the behavior of the parties themselves that the behavior is malicious collusion, and its judgment standard is the general concept of society. This requires the judge to fully explain the reasons in the judgment and disclose the process of his psychological evidence when demonstrating his psychological evidence. The judge should give full play to the functions of the court in providing evidence, cross examination and debate, require the victim to provide sufficient evidence, and fully demonstrate why the case is structured On this basis, the judge's free evaluation of evidence can be formed. Of course, in addition to the contract text of malicious collusion, if there is a letter between the two parties that damages the interests of the victim, it is the strongest direct evidence. "

4. Civil legal acts that violate laws and regulations and violate public order and good customs are invalid.

Article 153 of the Civil Code stipulates that "illegal" and "vulgar" civil legal acts are invalid through two paragraphs. The first paragraph is about "mandatory provisions of illegal laws and administrative regulations". Through the evolution of the general principles of the civil law, the contract law and its two judicial interpretations, this clause can be substantially interpreted as "mandatory provisions that violate the effectiveness of laws and administrative regulations". How to identify "effective mandatory provisions", the "minutes of the nine people" gives a reference answer: we should identify its nature on the basis of considering the types of legal interests protected by the mandatory provisions, the legal consequences of illegal acts, transaction security protection and other factors, and fully explain the reasons in the judgment documents. The following mandatory provisions shall be recognized as "effective mandatory provisions": mandatory provisions involving financial security, market order, national macro policies and other public order and good customs; The trading of trading objects is prohibited, such as the trading of human organs, drugs, guns, etc; Violating the franchise regulations, such as the OTC capital allocation contract; The transaction method is seriously illegal, such as violating the contract concluded by competitive contracting methods such as bidding; Illegal trading places, such as futures trading outside the approved trading places. Mandatory provisions of an administrative nature, such as business scope, transaction time, and transaction volume, should generally be recognized as "mandatory administrative provisions".

The second paragraph is about the invalidity of civil legal acts that violate customs. Public order and good customs is the abbreviation of public order and good customs, which belongs to the concept of uncertainty. Civil law theory generally adopts a typological approach, which distinguishes typical cases judged according to public order and good customs in judicial practice into several types of behavior that violate public order and good customs. These types include but are not limited to: (1) types that endanger the order of national politics, economy, finance, taxation, finance, public security, etc; (2) Types of behavior endangering family relations; (3) The types of violating sexual morality; (4) Types of violations of human rights and respect for personality; (5) Types of restricting economic freedom; (6) Types of behaviors violating fair competition; (7) Types of consumer protection violations; (8) Types of behaviors violating labor protection, etc. Like mandatory provisions, public order and good customs also reflect a restriction of the state on the autonomy of will in the civil field.

In judicial practice, an example of the blending of "mandatory provisions" and "public order and good customs" is how to characterize civil legal acts that violate departmental rules? Especially in the financial field, such as the "gambling agreement" in investment and financing and the "principal and income protection" clause in financial consumption. In this regard, the "nine minutes of the people" proposed that the violation of the regulations generally does not affect the effectiveness of the contract, but if the contents of the regulations involve financial security, market order, national macro policies and other public order and good customs, the contract should be deemed invalid. When determining whether the rules involve public order and good customs, the people's court should carefully consider the regulatory intensity, transaction security protection and social impact on the basis of investigating the object of the norms, and fully reason in the judgment documents.

Summary: Above, the civil code has set the situation of invalidity of civil legal acts from the perspective of civil subject, expression of will, compulsory order, etc. in combination with the provisions of articles 155 and 157, invalid civil legal acts are invalid from the beginning, and the legal effects of returning property, compensation at a discount, and compensation for losses are produced according to the specific circumstances.

iv. Dimension of effectiveness autonomy

As for the validity of civil legal acts after their establishment, the parties can agree on it by themselves, which is also the embodiment of the principle of autonomy of will. Conditions or periods can be set freely according to the will of the parties.

1. Conditional civil juristic act

Article 158 of the Civil Code stipulates that "conditional civil juristic act" refers to the fact that the parties take the objectively uncertain occurrence in the future as an attachment to the effectiveness of civil juristic act. Based on the standard that the attached conditions determine the occurrence or elimination of the effectiveness of civil legal acts, the conditions can be divided into effective conditions and cancellation conditions. It should be noted that although a conditional civil legal act takes effect or becomes invalid when the attached conditions appear, when the conditions have not been met, the civil legal act is still legally binding on the parties, and the parties shall not change or cancel it at will. [16] In addition, the nature of some civil legal acts requires that they should take effect in a timely manner, and the effectiveness is not allowed to be in an uncertain state, so there should be no conditions attached. For example, the act of negotiable instruments, because of its causeless and negotiability, cannot be attached with conditions; If conditions are allowed to be attached to the exercise of formative rights such as cancellation right and dissolution right, the uncertain legal relationship will be more uncertain, so conditions must not be attached.

Article 159 of the civil code is a hypothetical provision on the achievement and non achievement of the conditions of civil legal acts. In conditional civil legal acts, the achievement of conditions is directly related to the effectiveness of civil legal acts. Therefore, the parties cannot be allowed to prevent or facilitate the achievement of conditions improperly. According to this article, if a party improperly prevents the condition from being fulfilled for his own interests, the condition shall be deemed to have been fulfilled; If a condition is improperly contributed to, it shall be deemed that the condition is not achieved. "Deemed" here is a kind of legal fiction, which cannot be overturned.

2. Civil juristic act with time limit

Article 160 of the Civil Code stipulates "civil juristic act with a time limit", which refers to the time limit for the parties to objectively determine the coming facts in the future as a supplementary clause to determine the effectiveness of the juristic act. According to the standard of deciding whether a civil legal act becomes effective or invalid, it can be divided into effective period and invalid period; To determine whether the time of arrival is accurate or not, it can be divided into precise period and imprecise period. In principle, civil legal acts can be attached with a time limit. However, according to the nature of civil legal acts, except for those that cannot be attached with a time limit, they are mainly identity acts, such as marriage, adoption, etc.

It should also be noted that the time limit attached to a civil juristic act with a time limit is different from the time limit for the performance of a civil juristic act. The time limit of performance is the time limit imposed by the parties on the performance of the obligations of the effective civil legal act. At this time, civil rights and obligations have occurred, but because the time limit for performance has not expired, the obligations of the parties have no effect of compulsory performance. This means that before the expiration of the performance period, the obligor may not perform the obligation, and the obligee may not require the obligor to perform the obligation. For the civil legal act with effective period, the civil legal act has not taken effect and the civil rights and obligations have not occurred before the time limit.

Civil legal acts are initiated and established by civil subjects, and the expression of will is its core and essence. The civil code divides the effectiveness evaluation of civil legal acts into effectiveness, pending effectiveness, revocability and invalidity, and endows the parties with a system of autonomy over effectiveness. Civil legal acts can be done by themselves or entrusted to others, that is, the agency system in civil affairs, the concept and type of agency, and the effectiveness and termination. Please see the following set of talking about Agency of the general provisions of the civil code