The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the legal behavior standard system in China from the article 143 of General principles of Civil Law. Except "The behavior has a corresponding capacity"as a factor controlling the force of legal behavior in our country’s law. Should "Capacity for meaning"be separated from "Capacity for conduct"as an element of controlling the effectiveness of the legal behavior and makes the legal behavior invalidate? For example,if a minor of 7 years of age can be proved to have judgment ability,not only can the law set aside an interface for the "liability capacity"in tort law,but also leave the applicable space for the protection of bona fide third parties and for the liability for contracting fault; As the control element of legal act,"intention expressed is genuine"is contradictory to the overall legal norms of conduct. Judging from other norms,The"declaration of will"and legal behavior has systemic problems in General Principles of Civil Law reflected in the connotation and extension,rules of interpretation,contracts,etc. In General Principles of Civil Law,the lawgiver applies the"public order and good customs"in this article,however,it has confusing relationship with the"social public interests"and "public interests",for example,Article 143 applies the "public order and good customs",Article 185 applies to "social public interests",and Article 117 goes with "public interests". After analysis,I believe that the concept of "public order and good customs"and "public interest"should be used instead of "social public interests". In the system of expropriation,the "public interest"criterion can only be used. But in terms of restricting behavior freedom,such as the null and void of the legal behavior,"public order and good customs"and "public interest"are more appropriate.