You may also feel interested in:Abusing Face Recognition Technology Is Act of Tort !Overtime Payment and Statutory Holiday Web-casting is an emerging industry. However, related regulations are not established and many issues keep arising. Here's the question: the husband was found to have taken all the family savings without the wife's knowledge to top-up and reward the anchor, what can the wife do to get the money back?Mr. Wang started watching web-casts in 2016 when he registered an account on a live-streaming platform. He usually stayed in anchor Lu's live-streaming room whenever the night was quiet and his family was asleep.By 2019, Mr. Wang had given anchor Lu virtual gifts worth more than 900,000RMB. Mr. Wang's wife-Ms. Zhang, eventually found out and took Mr. Wang, along with the live broadcast platform and anchor Lu, to court.Ms. Zhang believed that Mr. Wang's act of giving the couple's common property away to the anchor without her consent is an invalid act. The reason is that the amount of the reward is obviously beyond the needs of daily life, and in the end Mr. Wang's act harmed the common property interests of the family. She demanded the live broadcast platform and anchor Lu return her husband's money.The first-instance court- Yangpu court in Shanghai rejected Ms. Zhang's claim. Ms. Zhang wouldn't accept the result and appealed to the Shanghai Second intermediate Court （the "second-instance court"）. The second-instance court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.Technically, this case involved the following legal issues:1. The legal relationship between Mr. Wang, the live broadcast platform and the anchor;2. The legal nature of Mr. Wang's top-up behavior on the platform;3. The legal nature of Mr. Wang's reward behavior towards the anchor, etc.1. The registration and recharge agreement between Mr. Wang and the live broadcast platform established the basis of the relationship between the parties, which constitutes a valid internet service contract. Mr. Wang's top-up behavior belongs to consumer behavior.2. The object of reward is data information and other derivatives generated and stored in the platform network database instead of cash. The anchor is a service provider for the live broadcast platform, there is no new relationship generated between Mr. Wang and the anchor which requires legal intervention. Thus the main issue in this case is the legal issues between Mr. Wang and the live platform.3. Regarding the effectiveness of Mr. Wang's disposition of the joint property of the family. As an adult with full civil capacity, Mr. Wang recharged and gave rewards over a period of three years in amounts ranging from 10 to 1,000 yuan an instance. It's difficult for the platform to detect that Mr. Wang had infringed on the property rights of others, and is not be obliged to review the user's marital status or obtain the consent of his spouse. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the live broadcast platform was aware of the fact that the property disposed of by Mr. Wang is the joint property of his family.In addition, Mr. Wang's transactions were in small amounts over a long period of time. This is defined as daily entertainment consumption, and did not exceed the scope of the husband or wife's right to dispose of family joint property.In conclusion, when the audience uses "family joint property" to top-up and reward, it is not certainly ineffective, as it's clearly that top-up and reward has become a normal necessity of life. In the judgment of whether the reward constitutes a disenfranchisement, it is necessary to make a comprehensive judgment on the frequency, amount, duration, and whether the perpetrator is contrary to public order and good customs.
No comments:
Post a Comment