news

Recently, a tenant in Shenzhen was subjected to a “light-light damage assessment” claim by the landlord, which attracted public attention. According to the tenant, the landlord hired a so-called “damage assessor” to inspect the house and marked hundreds of “damages” with sticky notes. The landlord not only refused to return the deposit, but also demanded compensation for the damage. Although the landlord was forced by public opinion to return the deposit in full after the intervention of the street office, the tenant did suffer a humiliating experience of quitting the lease.

After the "lantern damage assessment" incident in Yushan County, Jiangxi Province fermented through public opinion, the society formed a not-so-friendly symbolic impression of "lantern damage assessment" and Jiangxi landlords. "Lantern damage assessment" is essentially a rental dispute, and the dispute stems from the deviation of the psychological contract between the two parties regarding the depreciation of the house. The landlord who "lantern damage assessment" seeks all possible loss compensation for the purpose of maximizing interests, but the two parties did not reach an agreement on this when renting the house (including verbal agreement). Obviously, the landlord's overly self-interested behavior is "making things difficult" for the tenant and is a lack of moral character.

This type of civil dispute is actually a very common type of civil dispute in society. However, netizens are so indignant about "lighting the lantern to determine damages" mainly because the landlord bullies the weak and makes full use of the space of the uncertain contract to pursue as much profit as possible. The weak party has no definitive clauses in the standard contract as a basis, thus losing the protection of the standard text and can only allow the strong party to arrogantly assert its interests.

In my country, private houses meet most of the rental needs. In the absence of a standard contract, the two parties mainly reach a lease agreement through verbal agreement. The landlord's "lighting up the damage" behavior has no legal support. Generally speaking, transactions without a standard contract are often based on social trust, and social trust mainly comes from the moral habits of both parties. As long as there are no excessive circumstances, there will be no disputes between the two parties. Good morals enable transactions to maintain market order, which is what we often call public order and good customs.

This type of dispute can be resolved through negotiation, mediation or court trial, but because it involves personal judicial costs, not many people are willing to take legal action in the end. If all are resolved by the judiciary, I am afraid that the judicial organs will not be able to bear so many cases. In other words, this type of civil dispute with a small amount of money is mainly resolved through negotiation and mediation. This also reflects a common and common social problem, that is, the law cannot solve all social disputes, and the law cannot replace ethical norms. In fact, it is not only individual landlords who are unethical, but also a few tenants. We can also see many immoral and indecent behaviors of "unethical" tenants through various media. When they leave, they leave a house full of garbage and even abandon their pets.

The phenomenon of "using lanterns to determine damages" reflects the decline of the self-regulatory function of society, and is also a manifestation of what some people call "moral decline". Self-regulation of society requires that most people have commonalities in social ethics and consensus in moral cognition. We have seen that once the "using lanterns to determine damages" was exposed, it immediately became the target of public criticism, and the profit-seeking landlords were also afraid of public opinion. This shows that the ethical habits of most people in society are basically consistent, which is the social foundation of public order and good customs.

From "whether to help an elderly person" to "using lanterns to determine damages", the essential issues are the same, that is, they all reflect the differentiation of values ​​caused by the differentiation of interests. A very small number of profit-seeking people use the differences in psychological contracts and social authority to make things difficult for others, or even hurt those who help them, which may cause social ethics to "slip". The judiciary has assumed the responsibility of the last guardian. In the face of rude entanglement or lack of legal basis, it should support and protect the kind party.

However, the law cannot solve all social problems after all, and many civil affairs mainly rely on social self-regulation. Of course, if judicial mediation or grassroots administration can intervene in time, it may help resolve disputes early.

The occurrence of "using lanterns to determine damages" several times shows that social ethics do have difficulties in regulating individuals. Because the strong party often does not have to bear much cost, and the weak party often lacks sufficient social and legal support. Based on this reality, the importance of public opinion is highlighted. Public opinion represents the righteous party, and promotes the continuous civilization of social ethics by promoting and publicizing virtues, good deeds and public morality. The media has demonstrated its due social responsibility in maintaining public order and good customs, and has irreplaceable value in promoting individual morality and social civilization. Through extensive dissemination, I believe that there will be fewer and fewer landlords and unethical tenants who "use lanterns to determine damages".

Text | Xiao Jun