Theory of the capacity of civil liability, which has traditional capacity to perform civil acts as its premise and capacity of discrimination as its core, conflicts with and contradicts many systems and theories of civil law.

A natural person′s capability for civil liability is the foundation of judgement,only existing in the liability for fault.

The institution of natural person s capability for civil liability is the generalization for the provision about the minors or psychopaths liability problem in the law of creditor s right in the Civil code.

Scholars have been constantly debated on a natural person\'s Capability for Civil Liability on account of their negligence of the differences between China Law and the Extra-territorial Law even though they study it with the method of comparative law.

The capacity for civil liability has nothing to do with the capacity for civil conduct.

The traditional ideas which think that only part of natural person have capacity for civil liability is conflicted with capacity for civil rights.

According to "Contract Law" in our country,contract liability includes liability in making a contract and liability for breach of contract.

Judging from the connotation of the liability for breach of contract, its concurrence with the tort liability, and regulations in Insurance Law, this article discusses why liability for breach of contract should be included in the range.

There are a lot of differences between liability for breach of contract and liability for infringement of rights.

So we should bring the legal liability of engagement violation into the category of liability for breach of contracts.

The liability for infringement of rights and the liability for breach of contracts are two kinds of fundamental civil liability.