The hottest larceny labor contract dispute sales c

2022-08-15
  • Detail

Larceny, labor contract disputes, sales contract disputes, This week's live broadcast of the trial invites you to pay attention to the announcement of live broadcast of the trial

1

(2019) the case of labor contract dispute between Foshan Shunde baishisheng Hardware Industry Co., Ltd. and Chen Xihong, No. 21216, Yue 0606, the beginning of the Republic of China

2

(2019) the case of sales contract dispute between Li Kuilin, No. 21632, Yue 0606, the beginning of the Republic of China, and Guangdong Siwei Plastic Industry Co., Ltd.

<3

(2019) Yue 0606 min Chu No. 23040 Yu Xiaohui and Foshan Jinke Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. commercial housing pre-sale contract dispute case

4

(2019) Yue 0606 min Chu No. 23371 Guangdong Yilong Electrical Technology Co., Ltd. and he Zhiqiang labor contract dispute case

5

(2019) Yue 0606 Xing Chu No. 2843 Li Wanchang suspected of theft case

6

(2019) Yue 0606 min Chu No. 15612 Foshan Fubao fine additives Co., Ltd. and Foshan zhaoyue Textile Co., Ltd.

brief introduction of live broadcast case 1

case No.: (2019) Yue 0606 min Chu No. 21216

cause of action: labor contract dispute

plaintiff: Foshan Shunde baishisheng Hardware Industry Co., Ltd.

defendant: Chen Xihong

trial time and place: 9:00 on November 12, 2019, The presiding judge of the 18th trial court: Song Xiaoben

clerk: Lian Lepei

brief introduction of the case: the plaintiff claimed that the facts identified in the arbitration award and the distribution of evidence were wrong, and the defendant should provide evidence to prove that he worked overtime during the period from August 1, 2017 to June 30, 2019. The distribution of evidence in the arbitration award was wrong, and the salary actually received by the defendant included overtime salary, and the arbitration award had no factual and legal basis. In order to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests, the plaintiff appealed to the court

claims: 1. Correct the first item of the arbitration award fslrzz [2019] No. 3892, and order the plaintiff not to pay the defendant 11215.85 yuan of overtime wages on Sundays and legal holidays from August 1, 2017 to June 30, 2019; 2. It was ordered that the litigation costs of this case should be borne by the defendant

enter to watch the live broadcast of the trial

brief introduction of the live broadcast case 2

case No.: (2019) Yue 0606 Republic of China No. 21632

cause of action: sales contract dispute

plaintiff: Li Kuilin

the carrying capacity of the assessed lubricant: Guangdong Siwei Plastic Industry Co., Ltd.

trial time and place: 9:00 on November 12, 2019, The presiding judge of the second trial court of Beijiao Court: Fu Xiaoyan clerk: he Zhuojun case profile: a hardware wholesale department in Chenzhou Development Zone has long purchased plastic products from the defendant in the form of payment before receipt. After reconciliation between the two parties, until March 26, 2019, a hardware wholesale department in Chenzhou development zone had a remaining payment of 46261 yuan, which was forwarded by the defendant in real time. The experimental results can only be judged, the retrieval of experimental results, data analysis and Statistics Division. The defendant was unable to supply goods for various reasons. The defendant's refusal to supply seriously damaged the legitimate interests of a hardware wholesale department in Chenzhou development zone. The plaintiff is the operator of a hardware wholesale department in Chenzhou Development Zone, and a hardware wholesale department in Chenzhou Development Zone has been cancelled. Therefore, the plaintiff, as the operator of a hardware wholesale department in Chenzhou Development Zone, specially filed a lawsuit to the court

litigation claims: 1. The defendant immediately returned 46261 yuan of the payment for domestic electromechanical equipment, and paid liquidated damages for overdue payment from the date of prosecution to the date of repayment of the payment according to the bank's overdue loan interest rate; 2. The defendant shall bear all the legal costs of this case

enter to watch the live broadcast of the trial

brief introduction of the live broadcast case 3

case number: (2019) Yue 0606 Republic of China 23040

cause of action: commercial housing pre-sale contract

plaintiff: Yu Xiaohui

defendant: Foshan Jinke Real Estate Development Co., Ltd.

trial time and place: 14:30 on November 12, 2019, The presiding judge of the first trial court of Daliang Court: Liang Kui

clerk: Fan Wen

brief description of the case: the plaintiff claimed that in March 2019, the plaintiff went to a building developed by the defendant to see the building, and the defendant's salesperson received the plaintiff. The plaintiff had told that he had no social security and tax certificate in Foshan in recent years. The salesperson said he could help deal with it. The plaintiff could sign a contract to buy it, and promised to refund if he could not buy it, The plaintiff was also required to sign a subscription letter and pay a subscription deposit of 50000 yuan. On April 30, the salesperson informed the plaintiff to sign the "commercial housing sales contract (pre-sale)", which agreed that the 50000 yuan deposit originally paid by the plaintiff would be converted into the house purchase price, the first installment of the house purchase would be paid in three installments, and the balance of the house purchase of 1.73 million yuan would be paid in the form of bank mortgage. At this time, the plaintiff mentioned the purchase qualification again, but the salesperson still said it could be handled and refunded if it could not be purchased. The plaintiff believed it and signed the above contract with the defendant, but the defendant refused to deliver the original contract to the plaintiff on the grounds of internal documents. The plaintiff pressed for questions in many ways until August. In August, the salesperson told the plaintiff that the purchase qualification problem could not be solved, but asked the plaintiff to pay the first installment of the second installment of the house purchase price as agreed in the contract. It is a malicious transaction for the defendant to require the plaintiff to perform the contract while knowing that the plaintiff is not qualified to purchase the house and that the way of purchasing the house through bank mortgage agreed in the contract cannot be realized at all. Therefore, the plaintiff demanded a refund on the previous commitment of the salesperson, and the defendant refused to refund and said that if the plaintiff did not pay the first installment of the second installment on schedule, it would be deemed as a breach of contract, and all the paid purchase money would be confiscated

claims: 1. Rescind the "commercial housing sales contract (pre-sale)" signed by the plaintiff and the defendant; 2. The defendant returned the plaintiff's house purchase price of 248690 yuan and interest (calculated from the date of filing the case to the date of full repayment according to the loan interest rate of the people's Bank of China, which is the main factor causing the fire in the same period); 3. The legal costs shall be borne by the defendant

Copyright © 2011 JIN SHI