Carpool on the road, lawsuit? The court ruled that ...

Before and after the Spring Festival holiday,

In order to meet their travel needs,

Freedom and relaxation, going to road trip,

Become the first choice for most people to travel.

However, legal disputes involving road trip

But it has been increasing.

Recently, the Huangpu court in Guangzhou concluded the case.

A tourism contract dispute case,

On a whim, come back disappointed,

What is the case in court?

Basic information:

Carpool Spring Festival travel rush changed his itinerary and demanded a refund of the deposit and compensation.

Before the Spring Festival, Ahua and A Xin made friends in the WeChat group and went out to travel together. But because of some unpleasant little friction, it ended in discord. After returning home, Ahua sued A Xin on the grounds of tourism contract dispute, claiming to meet with A Xin and other people 10 for go on road trip during the Spring Festival. Before leaving, he paid a deposit to A Xin and signed an agreement.

Due to the epidemic, many scenic spots were closed, so A Xin changed his trip to Jiangxi and had to return early, which caused extra economic losses. A Xin refused to refund the deposit in full.

Ahua's request

A Xin doubled the deposit 1.200 yuan, compensated for the loss of 393 yuan and compensated the liquidated damages 1.56. 3 yuan.

A Xin replied.

Everyone said that he was right; Both sides claimed that they were right; Both sides have a lot to say.

What is the truth of the matter?

Ahua and others traveled in the same car on June 25th, 2020. The daily expenses incurred by A Xin while driving his own car were settled on WeChat group and shared equally by the passengers in the same car. Later, because the vehicle was damaged on the night of June 28, 2020, the other three people agreed to share the repair cost of 250 yuan, but Ahua did not agree to bear this part of the cost, so there was a contradiction. She withdrew from the activity on June 29, 2020.

Peer partners who testified in court all said that Ahua agreed to change the travel route during the trip, and said that the contradiction between Ahua and fellow passengers was mainly due to the burden of repairing cars.

The court ruled that:

Reject all claims of Ahua.

The dispute in this case lies in whether there is a travel contract relationship between the original and the defendant, and whether the plaintiff has the right to ask the defendant to double the deposit, compensate for the losses and pay liquidated damages.

In this process, A Xin undertook the obligation of convening and driving, and did not charge Ahua and others for profit. In other words, A Xin is not a "tour operator", and the relationship between him and Ahua does not constitute a travel contract, but a friendly act of meeting and traveling, and the relevant provisions of the Contract Law are not applicable.

A Xin did collect 600 yuan money from Ahua, although it was called "deposit", but as mentioned above, Ahua and A Xin do not constitute a tourism contract relationship, and the relevant provisions of the Contract Law on "deposit" are not applicable.

Ahua and his colleagues all agreed that 600 yuan should pay in advance, "more refund and less compensation", and later he did pay back the balance after the 600 yuan paid by his peers settled. To sum up, Ahua has no right to ask A Xin to double the return of 65,438 yuan +0.200 yuan, and bear the penalty of 65,438 yuan +0.56 yuan.

Ahua claimed a loss of 393 yuan, which was the transportation and accommodation expenses caused by her withdrawal from the team activities. Because Ahua's meeting with A Xin and others is an act of making friends, not a travel contract, and witnesses confirmed that after the trip, everyone agreed to adjust the route due to the epidemic. Even if the route adjustment is not out of Jen's original intention, based on the principle of friendship and mutual assistance, A Xin is not at fault for the plaintiff to change the route and the extra expenses incurred, and does not need to be liable for this part of Jen's expenses.

At the same time, Ahua did not submit the corresponding bills to prove that this part of the expenses did happen, and even if it did happen, according to the principle of profit and loss, under the condition of not changing the route, Ahua will still bear the transportation expenses for the return trip and the transportation expenses on the way, rather than the losses caused by changing the route.

The judge warned:

Travel "carpooling" needs to be cautious.

Drivers should do their duty of care,

It is not an excuse to "ride" others with kindness.

People who "ride" other people's cars,

We should be fully aware of the risks on the road.

It is best to sign a written risk agreement,

Clearly stipulate matters such as cost and responsibility sharing,

Beware of hurting people and friendship.

Learn more about the law d

Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the Supreme People's Court's Provisions on the Time Effect of People's Republic of China (PRC) Civil Code? The legal facts before the implementation of the civil code continued until after the implementation of the civil code. Civil disputes caused by legal facts shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Code, except as otherwise provided by laws and judicial interpretations.

"Tour operator" refers to a person who runs tourism business in his own name and provides tourism services to the public.

"Tourism auxiliary service provider" refers to the person who has a contractual relationship with the tour operator, assists the tour operator to fulfill the obligations of the tour contract, and actually provides travel services such as transportation, sightseeing, accommodation, catering and entertainment.

These Provisions shall apply to the tourism disputes between tourists and operators of tourist attractions in the process of self-travel.

Paragraph 1 of Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates that the parties have the responsibility to provide evidence of their own claims.

The Supreme People's Court's Interpretation of the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) Article 90 A party shall provide evidence of the facts on which his claim is based or the facts that refute the other party's claim, except as otherwise provided by law.

Before making a judgment, if the parties fail to provide evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove their claims, the parties with the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences.