Sina science and technology Yunmeng Zeya
Recently, a Hubei man who gave a prize to the female anchor 130000 later asked for rejection by the court, which caused netizens to discuss.
Sina science and technology found that after the incident was exposed, the related topics were rewarded with 130000 female hosts, and the men were rejected. The number of online reading was 3500million and 14000 discussions.
According to the report, in June 2019, Mr. Zhang of Xiangyang, Hubei Province met Wang Mou, the online female anchor through the live broadcast platform, and was very kind to Wang after watching the live broadcast for several days. In order to express his affection to the female host Wang Mou and get her attention, Zhang paid more than 130000 yuan to her many times.
It is worth noting that the more than 130 thousand yuan is transferred to female anchors through different channels, of which more than 40 thousand is Wang in a specific sense of the “520”, “1314” way through WeChat, Alipay to Wang; the other more than 80 thousand is through the network live platform reward payment.
After calm thinking, Zhang found it was a “virtual emotion”, decided to return the reward, but the lawsuit was rejected by the court.
The court held that Zhang’s act of transferring over 40 thousand yuan through WeChat and Alipay to Wang anchor Wang was considered to be a legal relationship of donation, not a loan relationship advocated by Zhang, and should be protected by law. In addition, the reward behavior of more than 80000 yuan awarded through live broadcast platform does not set an obligation to Wang, which is free of charge. Therefore, the two sides form a legal relationship of gift, which should be protected by law.
If Zhang has married at the time of reward, his spouse may void the gift contract for the prosecution of the host
In this hot discussion, there are two points worth paying attention to. More than 40000 of the 130000 yuan of adult men who reward female hosts
It is through WeChat and Alipay to play a female anchor. This part of the request for recovery is dismissed by the court. Why? What is the difference between the Internet reward of adults and minors in whether they can recover the reward?
In this regard, Sina Technology interviewed jiangzhenxiang, vice president of Bijie Law Association, the famous legal blogger @ talk about the opinions of Dian, Ouyang Yipeng, Beijing Beijing Normal (Zhengzhou) law firm, Lei Jiamao, Guangxi guangzhengda law firm, and Sui Bing, partner lawyer of Shanghai Jingheng law firm.
Jiang Zhenxiang, vice president of Bijie Lawyers Association, said that if WeChat and Alipay transferred more than 4 million yuan, if they were identified as gifts, their demand could not be supported.
How to judge whether Zhang’s bounty by WeChat or Alipay is a gift?
Jiang explained that whether the part of the money (40000 yuan) was a gift should be confirmed according to the wechat chat records of both parties. If both parties have chat records on the transfer, they can also judge whether the money transferred to the female anchor has special meaning according to the amount of each transfer by the man, such as whether they are all “1314”, “520” and other special meanings.
Judging from the current reports, Zhang’s transfer of 4 million yuan through WeChat and Alipay’s female anchors is a gift act, because Zhang’s chat with female anchor Wang revealed that Zhang’s transfer of money with special meaning amounts to “1314” and “520” in line with the relevant provisions of the gift, so the court rejected Zhang’s request for recovery.
(Zhang Mou to the female host Wang Mou transfer record source: surging video)
Jiang said that from the media coverage, Zhang Mou, a man who was adult and normal in mind when he was giving a reward, was not cheated or coerced when he was rewarded. The relationship between the two was the gift contract relationship. For the gift contract, if the object of the gift is money, the donor shall deliver the money to the donee. After the recipient accepts it, the gift contract has been fulfilled.
“If the donee does not have the situation of fraud or coercion in the gift contract which has been fulfilled, the people’s court shall not support the donation if he requests to cancel the gift.”
Sui Bing, a partner lawyer of Shanghai Jingheng law firm, also said that the court’s decision is OK, and that gift is also a legal act. As long as the donor has full civil capacity and the gift is a true meaning, once the property rights have been transferred, it cannot be revoked in general.
The famous legal blogger @ talks also expressed the same view, “reward” is a gift act in law. As long as the female anchor does not have fraud and other illegal criminal acts, and the reward man belongs to an adult, has full civil capacity and is rewarded voluntarily, then the gift is effective.
So in what circumstances can Zhang recover the reward from the female host Wang Mou?
Lawyer Lei Jiamao, a lawyer at Guangxi guangzhengda law firm, explained that Zhang wanted to recover the reward for the female anchor, and that unless the host had three situations, he could ask for return: 1. Seriously infringing the legitimate rights and interests of Zhang himself or his close relatives; 2. He had the obligation of raising Zhang without performing the obligation stipulated in the gift contract. There are no three cases in this case for the information disclosed at present, so it is not allowed to claim return.
Ouyangyipeng, a lawyer at Beijing Beijing Normal (Zhengzhou) law firm, said that contracts concluded by adults aged 18 years old need to meet legal conditions for cancellation or invalidity in order to be non binding.
For example, reward is cheated by the host, and the object of reward is the wrong object (the case of non blogger leaving the country). If the effectiveness of the punishment behavior of fraud or recognition of error is changed, the possibility of recovering the loss is still possible in case of such situation. Of course, a big premise is also added. The live broadcast or reward you watch should be legal rather than illegal pornographic broadcast.
Lei added that if Zhang had married at the time of reward, his spouse could void the gift contract for the prosecution of the host.
Because during the duration of the marriage relationship, both parties have the ownership of the common property without sharing the share. If the husband or wife does not dispose of the joint property of the husband and wife due to the daily life, they shall agree on it, and neither party shall have the right to dispose of the joint property of the husband and wife; otherwise, the donation is invalid, and the spouse may claim return on the basis of infringement of the joint property right.
Compared with minors, what is the difference between the reward behavior of adults on the Internet and whether they can return the reward?
@Views on classics According to the explanation, a reward given to a minor under the age of 8 is a person without civil capacity. If the parents do not recognize it, it will be invalid; for a minor aged 8-18, the amount of reward in accordance with his age and intelligence is effective in law, and the reward that obviously does not conform to the consumption characteristics of minors’ age needs to be recognized by the parents afterwards Effect.
Enhance the recognition of the legal nature of reward and be responsible for their own behavior
Lawyer Sui Bing said that nowadays, reward has become the main source of income for live broadcast platform and many anchors. This business model has no problem on the basis of legitimacy. As a user, while watching the live broadcast, he should also understand the legal nature of reward itself and be responsible for his own behavior.
Lei Jiamao warned that the case reminds us that as a mature adult, he should know the nature of his own behavior and should bear the legal consequences of his own behavior. Cases exposed online are the best example. Don’t act impulsively. The anchorman should also pay attention to that in the process of live broadcast activities, it is not allowed to lure or deceive others to reward. Otherwise, the contract will be invalid and the payment will be returned. In addition, it may be suspected of fraud and face imprisonment.
Nowadays, live broadcasting has become an indispensable part of people’s life. On the one hand, live broadcasting is a way to decompress, share interesting life events, promote products, and help others; on the other hand, live broadcasting has become a tool for making profits in the eyes of many people. There is nothing wrong with one more way to seek life, but it should bear the corresponding legal consequences to cheat others’ sympathy and money by means of live broadcast platform.
In addition, as a mature, discerning and judgmental adult viewer, don’t have a fluke mind and want to get some benefits from it. Once you enter the bottomless pit, it’s very difficult to repent. Finally, we should strengthen the recognition of the legal nature of the reward behavior itself and be responsible for its own behavior.
After rewarding the female anchor 130000, the man’s request was rejected. The court said that the donation did not support the return