the confinement center unilaterally changed the place of performance. because of the word "new mother", the claim for compensation was reduced by 2,000 yuan.
2024-09-25
한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina
the contract for maternal and child care services during the confinement period had been signed, but the confinement center unilaterally changed the place of performance. the "new mother" sued for a refund and double compensation for the "deposit" of 2,000 yuan. during the lawsuit, the confinement center agreed to refund the money, but submitted evidence that the 2,000 yuan was a "deposit".the haidian court ruled that the confinement center should return zhao's service fee of 108,600 yuan and rejected zhao's lawsuit request for double compensation of 2,000 yuan.
zhao signed a maternal and infant care service agreement with the defendant's confinement center, agreeing that the confinement center would provide maternal and infant care services at its wangfujing flagship store, with a total contract price of 108,600 yuan. zhao said that on the day the agreement was signed, he paid a deposit of 2,000 yuan, and later paid the remaining balance of 106,600 yuan as agreed. however, not long after, liu, the contact person of the confinement center, told zhao that the care could not be provided at the wangfujing store, but would be performed at a hotel in fengtai district instead. after that, the two parties negotiated that since the confinement center unilaterally changed the place of service performance, resulting in the inability to perform the contract, the confinement center would unconditionally return the contract money paid to zhao.
zhao said that he had sought compensation from the confinement center and liu many times since then, but has not received the money so far. during the negotiation process, liu promised zhao in writing that he would "not give up or shirk responsibility" and proposed to "use the refunded money as shares". therefore, zhao believed that liu's behavior was an active request to bear the compensation liability. based on this, zhao asked the confinement center to return the contract amount of 108,600 yuan and double the 2,000 yuan deposit, and liu to bear joint and several liability.
the confinement center only agreed to return the 108,600 yuan it had collected, and said that the 2,000 yuan was not a deposit, so it could only be returned in full, and it did not agree to double the amount. liu argued that whether it was the change in the agreement or the collection of money, it was the company's behavior and had nothing to do with him, and he did not agree to bear joint and several liability.
after the trial, the court held that both parties agreed to return the contract amount of 108,600 yuan, and the court had no objection to this.
regarding the dispute between the two parties over whether the 2,000 yuan is a "deposit" or a "subscription fee",the court found that, judging from the terms of the service contract involved in the case, the clause "party a shall pay a 50% deposit, i.e. rmb 2,000, on the day of signing the contract" was amended to "party a shall pay a deposit, i.e. rmb 2,000, on the day of signing the contract", and the clause "vi. regarding contract renewal, refund and termination" of the service contract, which involves the content of the deposit, was also deleted. although the above-mentioned modification and deletion operations were carried out by the confinement center, zhao did not raise clear written objections and actually signed the contract to confirm it, so the above-mentioned modifications and deletions should be deemed to be effective and binding on zhao and the confinement center company.
on the other hand, when zhao transferred 2,000 yuan, he also noted it as a "deposit". although he said he had no idea when transferring the money, this statement is not reasonable and has no basis, and the receipt issued by the confinement center also clearly stated "deposit".zhao did not submit sufficient and effective evidence to prove that the 2,000 yuan he transferred was a deposit. therefore, the court did not support his lawsuit request for double the return of the deposit.
in addition, the court determined that liu was performing his duties and the entity obligated to refund should be the confinement center. therefore, liu did not have to bear joint and several liability.
the court finally made the above judgment. after the judgment was announced, neither party appealed and the judgment has now come into effect.
the judge introduced,in judicial practice, the nature and legal effect of deposits and down payments are focal issues that are more likely to cause confusion and dispute among the parties to the lawsuit.
a deposit is a legal concept. it is a form of guarantee voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to a contract to ensure the formation, effectiveness or performance of the contract. it has the nature of a guarantee. after the deposit is paid, if the debtor performs his debts, the deposit is generally used as payment or recovered. according to legal provisions, the deposit agreement must be clear. if the agreement is not clear, it is deemed that there is no agreement on the deposit. the legal consequences of claiming a deposit based solely on ambiguous words may not be supported by the court. in addition, a deposit contract is a practical contract, and the actual delivery of the corresponding deposit amount is a prerequisite for its establishment. if the corresponding deposit amount is not actually delivered, it is deemed that there is no agreement on the deposit, and the amount of the deposit shall not exceed 20% of the subject matter of the main contract.
deposit is just a customary term, not a legal concept. generally, it does not have the function of guarantee and is just an advance payment.typically, during the performance of a contract, a deposit is used to express the buyer's intention to purchase goods or services.
the judge reminded the majority of transaction parties that if they plan to agree on a deposit clause to bind the contract parties, the two parties should clearly negotiate in detail the specific content of the deposit, including the payment time, amount, etc., and try to agree in written form, clearly stating the word "deposit" to prevent disputes from arising and the two parties arguing.
source: beijing daily client
reporter: gao jian
