After the wedding banquet is scheduled, the sales manager rolls the way. Should the company refund the consumer?

Consumers go to the hotel to pay a wedding banquet and pay directly to the catering sales manager. Unexpectedly, the catering sales manager rolls on the way. Can this money still have to come back? Recently, the People's Court of Shenzhen Pingshan District tried such a case of deposit contract disputes, determined that the catering sales manager's private collection behavior was a job behavior, and the hotel was determined that the hotel was returned to the consumer wedding banquet.

It is reported that since May 2019, Zhang has served as a catering sales manager at a hotel Co., Ltd. of the defendant Shenzhen. On November 27, 2019, the plaintiff Li and Zhang scheduled the defendant's Chinese restaurant as a wedding banquet venue through a WeChat signal, and reached a consensus on the wedding banquet. The WeChat account provided is transferred to the Alipay account provided by Zhang to Zhang on January 220, 2020.

After paying the first amount of 20,000 yuan, the plaintiff received a wedding invitation to the defendant for it. During the performance of the contract, due to the epidemic reasons, the plaintiff and Zhang were negotiated, and the two sides agreed that they no longer fulfilled the contract and Zhang returned the plaintiff's 50,000 yuan deposit. The deposit refund.

In order to protect their legitimate rights and interests, the plaintiff will be told to the court to request the defendant to refund the deposit of 50,000 yuan. During the trial, the defendant argued that there was no written or verbal deposit contract between the defendants, and the defendant did not authorize Zhang to collect the customer's deposit. Affordable to return the payment.

The Pingshan Court heard that Zhang, as the defendant's catering sales manager of a hotel Co., Ltd., seized a wedding banquet contract with the plaintiff with the plaintiff through the working micro -signal during his job. After receiving the plaintiff's deposit, the contract has begun.

The above -mentioned behavior of the defendant's employee Zhang had the appearance of his position. He did not surpass the scope of responsibility, and did not exceed the plaintiff's cognition as a general consumer. Therefore, it should be determined that Zhang's behavior of receiving the plaintiff's deposit belonged to his duty. The plaintiff transferred the deposit twice to the WeChat account and Alipay account designated by Zhang. The plaintiff had reason to believe that the representative of the Zhang department collected the deposit. The behavior that did not pay the company but privately possessed. It is the internal management problem between the defendant and Zhang. It is not possible to confront the plaintiff as a goodwill.

During the performance of the contract, because the epidemic reasons and the defendant agreed to cancel the wedding banquet, both parties had no fault, which caused the purpose of the contract to be realized. The plaintiff requested the defendant to return the wedding banquet deposit of 50,000 yuan in compliance with the law. If the defendant believes that outsiders Zhang suspected of criminal criminal criminals such as duties, they may find another legal way to seek relief. In the end, the Pingshan Court judged that the defendant Shenzhen Hotel Co., Ltd. returned the wedding banquet to the plaintiff Li Mou 50,000 yuan. After the first trial, the defendant refused to accept the judgment and appealed. At present, the judgment has taken effect.

[Judge's statement] The company shall bear responsibility for the acting act of employees

This case involves duty agents. As a special commissioned agent, the job agent is based on the existence of employment and labor relationship between the agent and the agent. Article 170 of the "People's Republic of China" stipulates: "Persons who execute legal persons or illegal organizations work tasks shall be based on the matters within the scope of their powers, and the civil legal acts organized by legal persons or illegal organizations are right. The legal person or the organization of illegal persons will have the effect. The limitations of the legal person or the organization of the personnel of the personnel who perform their tasks shall not fight against goodwill. "

According to this regulation, as long as the actor in the duty agent implements within the scope of the authority, the behavior implemented in the name of the name of the legal person or an illegal person shall be identified as the acting acting behavior, and the legal person or an illegal person shall bear civil liability. The acting agent does not require special authorization of legal person or illegal organization, that is, general authorization, no need to authorize. In this case, the plaintiff served at the defendant's office during the defendant's office. Zhang received the act of the plaintiff's deposit in the office. The defendant should not run the money from Zhang's volume and did not receive a deposit to fight against the plaintiff as a goodwill.

Shenzhen Evening News reporter Yixiao Hong correspondent Liu Bin Huang Zhenguang

- END -