scholarly journals Analysis of the Ecological Management and Control Strategy of the Third Party Sellers on the Electronic Business Platform of JD.com

Author(s):  
Xiaowei Zhu ◽  
Yuan Li
2021 ◽  
pp. 9-36
Author(s):  
Gayane Makhmourian

NAKHIJEVAN REGION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TREATY OF MOSCOW AND OF THE RUSSIAN–TURKISH–AZERBAIJANIAN RELATIONS IN 1920-1921 As it was necessary for the Kemalist Turkey to abolish the results of the Treaty of Sèvres, it came to an understanding with the Soviet Russia and gained assistance of its Red Army. Thus, the Turkish detachments returned into Nakhijevan on July 28, 1920, though they were driven out of it earlier by the forces of the Republic of Armenia. The latter one agreed to consider this district a "contestable" territory and adopted the deployment of the Bolshevik Army in it. Taking into account the fatal course of the Turkish-Armenian War of 1920, the official Yerevan did not reject on October 28 the future referendum in Nakhijevan; and the RSFSR accepted the unshakeable right of Armenia in regard to this district. However, the Alexandropol Treaty was signed on December 2, and the Republic of Armenia referred a conduct of referendum and control over the whole area to the Turkish Army. This Treaty deprived Armenia of the sovereign rights regarding Nakhijevan. Subsequent stubbornness of Turkey, together with its contribution to the Sovietization of Azerbaijan, produced the Treaty of Moscow, signed on March 16/18, 1921. This transaction grossly violated the international law and without participance of the third party – independent, though sovietized but mutinous Armenia, had transferred trusteeship over Nakhijevan to Azerbaijan. On October 13, 1921, Armenia got a tiny territorial cession, sanctioned the Treaty of Kars and recognized the new status of Nakhijevan.


2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaclyn M. Moloney ◽  
Chelsea A. Reid ◽  
Jody L. Davis ◽  
Jeni L. Burnette ◽  
Jeffrey D. Green

Author(s):  
Chen Lei

This chapter examines the position of third party beneficiaries in Chinese law. Article 64 of the Chinese Contract Law states that where a contract for the benefit of a third party is breached, the debtor is liable to the creditor. The author regards this as leaving unanswered the question of whether the thirdparty has a right of direct action against the debtor. One view regards the third party as having the right to sue for the benefit although this right was ultimately excluded from the law. Another view, supported by the Supreme People’s Court, is that Article 64 does not provide a right of action for a third party and merely prescribes performance in ‘incidental’ third party contracts. The third view is that there is a third party right of action in cases of ‘genuine’ third party contracts but courts are unlikely to recognize a third party action where the contract merely purports to confer a benefit on the third party.


Author(s):  
Sheng-Lin JAN

This chapter discusses the position of third party beneficiaries in Taiwan law where the principle of privity of contract is well established. Article 269 of the Taiwan Civil Code confers a right on the third party to sue for performance as long as the parties have at least impliedly agreed. This should be distinguished from a ‘spurious contract’ for the benefit of third parties where there is no agreement to permit the third party to claim. Both the aggrieved party and the third party beneficiary can sue on the contract, but only for its own loss. The debtor can only set off on a counterclaim arising from its legal relationship with the third party. Where the third party coerces the debtor into the contract, the contract can be avoided, but where the third party induces the debtor to contract with the creditor by misrepresentation, the debtor can only avoid the contract if the creditor knows or ought to have known of the misrepresentation.


2004 ◽  
Vol 95 (3) ◽  
pp. 965-968
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Qaqiesh ◽  
Pamela C. Regan

An experiment was conducted to examine whether attitudes toward extrarelational sex, i.e., “swinging,” differed as a function of participant's gender and gender of the third party, i.e., the “swinging” partner. Participants were asked to imagine that their current romantic partner had expressed an interest in “swinging” with another individual (male or female, randomly assigned). Analysis yielded several significant differences by participants' gender. Specifically, men expressed greater interest than did women in joining a swinger's club, reported a higher likelihood than did women of actually joining such a club, and believed more than women that their sex life with their partner would improve after joining a swinger's club. Participants also preferred a female more than a male swinging partner, although this comparison was not statistically significant.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document