news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

“free one-day tour, pick-up and home delivery service”, “free eggs and gifts, and help you learn financial management knowledge”... these marketing words may sound exciting at first glance, but in fact they are a cover designed by some investment companies. tourism is used as "bait" to target the "money bags" of the elderly, seriously infringing on the legitimate rights and interests of consumers. the judge reminded us to be more vigilant when traveling and spending money.

uncle zhang participated in a free one-day tour organized by company a, during which he attended an investment project presentation session. at the presentation meeting, the speaker introduced the investment project with guaranteed capital and income, and gave away high-end caviar. uncle zhang signed an investment agreement on the spot, paid an investment of 120,000 yuan, and received several boxes of caviar as a gift.

then company a failed to pay the investment income on time, and uncle zhang proposed to the manager, xiao wang, that the investment be returned and the income be paid. xiao wang took back the original agreement from uncle zhang and said that after uncle zhang returns the caviar and deducts 10,000 yuan in room and board expenses incurred during the trip, the remaining investment will be returned. however, after returning the caviar, uncle zhang only received a refund of 40,000 yuan.

uncle zhang sued company a to the court and asked company a to return the remaining investment of 80,000 yuan. company a argued that uncle zhang did not transfer the investment money into company a's public account, and was unable to provide the original investment agreement. the caviar given by the company had also expired, so it did not agree to refund.

the tongzhou district people's court of beijing held after hearing that, based on evidence such as call recordings, chat records, and company a's refund and transfer records, there was a fact that uncle zhang paid an investment of 120,000 yuan to company a and received caviar as a gift. although company a denied it but did not provide further evidence to prove it. company a recognized that xiao wang was its agent. based on the call recording, uncle zhang handled the remaining refund through xiao wang. however, company a has only refunded 40,000 yuan so far, which constitutes a breach of contract.