问题 多项选择题

A房地产开发公司,在某市政府举办的国有土地拍卖会上拍得某市城南一片基建用地。双方在合同中约定,该房地产公司应在2004年4月前动工开发该土地。因前期资金不足,2006年4月该公司才开工建设。2006年11月,其在该土地上建成2幢商务用楼。同月,其与B公司签订合同,将2幢商务用楼转让给B公司。回答以下问题。

关于A房地产公司与某市政府之间订立的土地使用权出让合同,下列说法错误的是( )。

A.该合同应该由市土地局与A房地产公司词订立

B.该合同应该由市政府与A房地产公司订立,因为国有土地出让权的主体是国家

C.若A房地产公司未按合同支付土地出让金,则该市土地局可以解除合同,并向A公司主张违约赔偿

D.若该市上地局未按照合同提供土地,则A房地产公司可以提起行政复议或者行政诉讼

答案

参考答案:B,D

解析: 土地出让合同的性质
土地使用权出让,是指国家以土地所有人的身份,将一定时间内的国有土地使用权有偿转让给土地使用人的一种法律行为。
A、B项,《城市房地产管理法》第14条规定,土地使用权出让,应当签订书面出让合同。土地使用权出让合同由市、县人民政府土地管理部门与土地使用者签订。可见,虽然土地出让的主体只能是国家,但是土地出让合同却是由市、县人民政府的土地管理部门代表国家签订的。A项说法正确,不选;B项说法错误,入选。
C、D项,同法第15条规定,土地使用者必须按照出让合同约定,支付土地使用权出让金;未按照出让合同约定支付土地使用权出让金的,土地管理部门有权解除合同,并可以请求违约赔偿。第16条规定,土地使用者按照出让合同约定支付土地使用权出让金的,市、县人民政府土地管理部门必须按照出让合同约定提供出让的土地,未按照出让合同约定提供出让的土地的,土地使用者有权解除合同,由土地管理部门返还土地使用权出让金,土地使用者并可以请求违约赔偿。可见,虽然土地出让合同是典型的行政合同,但其纠纷处理与民事纠纷的处理却十分类似。另外,根据行政法理论,订立行政合同不属于具体行政行为,就其不能提起行政复议和行政诉讼。C项说法正确,不选;D项说法错误,人选。

选择题
问答题

An auditing firm was entrusted by a listed stock company (Stock Company) to audit its accounts for the year ended 31 December 2006. During the process of auditing, the certified public accountants (CPAs) found the following information relevant to the business transactions for the year 2006:(a) On 1 April 2006, Stock Company concluded a contract with an instrument company. Under this contract Stock Company would be responsible for the management of the instrument company for three years. It would be compensated with 30% of the net profit of the instrument company for the management. By the end of 2006, Stock Company received a management fee of RMB 4 million yuan, which accounted for 10% of the net profit of Stock Company. (3 marks)(b) Stock Company was involved in a commercial dispute with a third party and the dispute was brought to the basic level court for trial. Stock Company had disclosed the information on the local newspaper when it received the judgement of the first instance. Both parties to the dispute disagreed with the judgement of the first instance and brought an appeal to the intermediate court. However, the court had not heard the appeal case by the end of 2006. (3 marks)(c) In September 2006, one of the shareholders who held 3% shares of Stock Company placed its shares as guarantee for a loan agreement. (4 marks)Required:For the Items (a), (b) and (c), discuss whether the above-mentioned information of Stock Company should be disclosed to the public in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Securities Law of China.Note: the mark allocation is shown against each of the three items above. (10 marks)