Guangzhou courts issued ten typical cases on the implementation of the Civil Code
If the ride-hailing driver hits someone, the ride-hailing platform bears joint and several liability
Yangcheng Evening News reporter He Yu, Dong Liu, correspondent Zheng Yuting, Xie Ping, Zhao Yunchuan
On May 5, the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court held a press conference on the implementation of the ten typical cases of the Civil Code by Guangzhou courts. Ten typical cases closely related to the people's lives, such as the determination of the validity of the will of audio and video recordings, the punishment for refusing to pay the intermediary fee for buying a house, and whether the ride-hailing company bears part of the responsibility for beating someone by an online ride-hailing driver, were announced at the scene.
A will made in the form of audio or video recordings shall have two or more witnesses present to witness it
In the case of Feng Mouqiang v. Feng Moujia and others in an inheritance dispute, Leung made a notarized will in July 2011 and March 7 respectively, designating the shares in her name and the share of the house belonging to her to be inherited by Fung Mouqiang. After the death of Feng Mousong and his wife Liang Mougui, Feng Mouqiang filed a lawsuit with the court, requesting that notarized testamentary inheritance be applied to his mother's estate. Feng Moujia did not recognize the notarized will, and submitted an audio and video recording, intending to prove that Liang Mougui wanted to divide the property equally among his five children.
The Nansha District People's Court of Guangzhou Municipality held that the available evidence could not prove that there were disinterested witnesses who witnessed the video testimony on the spot. According to Article 1137 of the Civil Code, "a will made in the form of audio or video recording shall be witnessed by two or more witnesses. The testator and witnesses shall record their names or portraits, as well as the year, month and day, in the audio and video recordings", the video involved in the case does not conform to the legal form of the audio and video recording will and cannot be recognized as a valid will, so the claim of Feng Moujia and others that the property involved in the case is owned by each party with one-fifth share.
If the purchase of a house is maliciously "jumped", the intermediary company can sue to protect rights
In an intermediary contract dispute case brought by an agency company against Wu and Ran, Wu entrusted an agency company to exclusively underwrite and sell the villa under his name, and paid the intermediary service fee after the house was completed. Later, Ran signed an "Intermediary Service Agreement" with an agency company, promising to pay commission after successfully purchasing the property. An agency company recommended the villa to Ran, and then Wu signed a transaction sales contract with Ran and completed the transaction transfer procedures. After learning of this, an agency company filed a lawsuit requesting Wu and Ran to pay intermediary fees separately.
The effective judgment of the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court held that through a comprehensive analysis of the evidence in this case, it was sufficient to determine that Wu and Ran had constituted "jumping orders". The first-instance judgment in this case determined that the two parties should pay an intermediary service fee of 11,<> yuan respectively, and the second-instance judgment upheld the original judgment. The Civil Code clearly prohibits the act of jumping orders, and the judgment of this case makes a judicial determination that buyers and sellers use intermediary information to carry out malicious "order skipping" behavior, which plays a guiding role in the healthy and orderly development of the intermediary service market.
If the ride-hailing driver beats someone, the ride-hailing platform shall be liable for failing to fulfill its security obligations
In the case of Zhang v. Zhou and a technology company over the right to body and the right to health, Zhang placed an order on the APP of a technology company to request a car, and the driver Zhou beat Zhang in the car. After identification, the extent of Zhang's injuries was assessed as minor, and Zhang sued a technology company and Zhou to jointly compensate for his losses. A technology company argued that its company was not at fault in the course of its service and should not be jointly and severally liable.
The effective judgment of the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court held that under the provisions of China's current law, in the online ride-hailing business, the online platform should bear the security obligation of the organizer. During the litigation in this case, a technology company did not provide evidence to prove its obligation to provide pre-job training and education to drivers, so it was decided to decide that a technology company should bear supplementary liquidation liability for 20% of Zhou's liability.