Anticipatory breach includes renunciatory breach and prospective inability to per-form the contract.The renunciatory breach can be expressed orally or in writing,as well as through an act.The dictions of the renunciatory breach should be certain,so that it could be rea-sonably understood that such a breach would occur.The obligations refused to perform should be substantial and fundamental in the contract.The obligator could withdraw the renunciatory breach and indicate his will to perform before the non-breaching party accepts the renunciatory breach,thus preventing rescinding the contract.The obligator's subjective intention is not a constitutive requirement of the renunciatory breach.The non-breaching party is entitled to discharge the contract as well as claim for damages for breach of contract when the expression or the behavior of the obligator constitutes an anticipatory breach.Also,the non-breaching party may urge the withdrawal of the renunciatory breach or ignore it until the expiration of the time limit for perform-ance.The non-breaching party is entitled to require the obligator to provide sufficient assurance when the obligator's ability to perform is sensibly doubtful.The failure of the obligator to provide such assurance constitutes an anticipatory breach of contract.
With the goal of promoting the healthy growth of minors,the legislative demand of the Family Education Promotion Law is to universally enhance the capacity of family education and regulate family education behavior.However,within the flexible legislation,advocacy meas-ures that focus on guidance and promotion are difficult to fully address the various problems in family education reflected in juvenile delinquency or criminal infringement in judicial practice.Between the improper and mild parenting methods and the direct infringement of guardianship,we should focus on the connection between law and law,and further clarify the mandatory conno-tation of Article 49 of the Family Education Promotion Law ordering acceptance of family educa-tion guidance.We should strengthen the judicial intervention of the state on family guardianship dysfunction and difficult self-healing guardianship behaviors,and establish an effective interme-diate measure through the mandatory writ of supervision and guardianship.Establishing a stand-ardized system for receiving recommendations of family education guidance,mandatory supervi-sion orders,and rigid revocation of guardianship qualifications,and also promoting the imple-mentation of guardianship responsibilities of the Civil Code through the family education approach of social law.In terms of the specific structure of supervision and guardianship,it can be im-proved from clarifying the systematic content elements of supervision and guardianship orders,de-termining the standardized scope of application,improving the preliminary investigation and eval-uation and subsequent tracking and adjustment procedures,collaborating with social support,and constructing a tiered mandatory security system.
"因果关系推定""因果关系拟制"以及"独立请求基础"三种规范模式均能在《民法典》第1170条中得到印证.立法者倾向于将共同危险行为作为独立请求基础的做法容易导出复数诉讼标的."具体加害人不明"还将引发诉讼标的转化不畅以及"判非所请"等《民法典》实施难题.以"视为"为标识的"因果关系拟制"虽然不存在复数诉讼标的,但有扩大审理范围和诉讼构造复杂化之问题."因果关系拟制"和"独立请求基础"可能诱使受害人和法官"向共同危险行为逃逸".以《民法典》与《民事诉讼法》协同实施为基准,"因果关系推定"的诉讼实施更为顺畅,在程序转化方面具有自身优势.以"纠纷一次性解决"为导向,侵权责任编亟待"特殊→一般"之逆向化整理.对于请求内容相同的侵权之诉,法官应在同一诉讼标的内体系化地运用侵权责任规范.
The amendment of Article 1182 of the Civil Code to Article 20 of the Tort Liability Law not only makes the application of disgorgement damages no longer based on the difficulty of determining the losses suffered by the infringed party,but also makes disgorgement damages a distinct type of tort liability and a way of assuming liability completely different from the filing of damages and compensation for loss.Due to the fact that different types of liabilities often corre-spond to different applicable conditions,and Article 1182 does not provide a comprehensive and clear description of the applicable conditions for disgorgement damages,the applicable conditions for deprivation of benefits should be reinterpreted.Based on the unique legal principles and effects of the tort liability system,the infringement of personal rights and interests,the benefit of the infringer,and the causal relationship should be determined as three necessary conditions for the application of disgorgement damages,while the loss suffered by the infringed person is not the prerequisite for its application.Based on the deprivation and prevention functions of the system of disgorgement damages,the unlawfulness of the infringing act should be taken as the fundamental reason for attribution of liability;At the same time,in order to fully utilize the preventive func-tion,the degree of fault of the infringer should be in a positive correspondence with the scope of benefits that can be deprived,which in order to achieve a dynamic match between the applicable conditions and the scope of liability.
The commercialization of data involves two types of subjects-data sources and data processors.According to the two classification criteria of whether the source is an individual or not and whether the processor is a public sector or not,we can divide data into four quadrants:public personal data,non-public personal data,non-public non-personal data,and public non-personal data,with the degree of openness of the data within the four quadrants increasing in order.Data involving privacy cannot be circulated unless it has been anonymized or with the individual's separate consent.Industry regulatory authorities shall supervise the entire processing of individual data.The original data processors are entitled to hold,use and manage data,and profit from them,which shall be refined into the right to hold data resources centered on control,the right to use data processing centered on processing and self-consumption,and the right to operate and dispose of data centered on operating income and non-operating disposal.The rights of successive processors depend on the data circulation contract.For scenarios involving multiple types of data,the distribution of data rights shall follow the corresponding quadrant rules.
