After signing the settlement agreement after calling the police, can you still regret it?

Mr. Huang had a dispute with Ms. Zhang who lived in the same community because he took the toon in front of the residential building, and under the coordination of the police, the two sides reached an "agreement", and Mr. Huang compensated Ms. Zhang with 1,000 yuan. Afterwards, Mr. Huang believed that the agreement was signed under Ms. Zhang's "blackmail" and demanded that Ms. Zhang return 1,000 yuan in compensation and compensate for the damaged backpack. After trial, the Haidian court ruled to dismiss all of Mr. Huang's claims.

Brief facts of the case

The plaintiff, Mr. Huang, claimed that he and Ms. Zhang lived in the same community, and the two had a dispute over the ownership of the toon tree in front of the residential building, and Ms. Zhang insisted that the toon tree belonged to her personally, so the two sides quarreled and pulled, Mr. Huang's backpack was seriously damaged in the pull, and the back of his right hand was scratched by Ms. Zhang and slightly bleeding. During this period, Ms. Zhang called the police and has been "lying on the ground". Under the coordination of the police, Mr. Huang verbally apologized to Ms. Zhang, transferred 1,000 yuan through WeChat transfer, and the two sides signed an agreement to retain the certificate.

The defendant Ms. Zhang argued that Mr. Huang picked a toon tree belonging to Ms. Zhang, and he warned Mr. Huang, but Mr. Huang did not stop, the two sides had a dispute, and then called the police to deal with it, the two sides had reached a mediation agreement, Mr. Huang compensated Ms. Zhang 1,000 yuan, and there was no more dispute on this matter.

Court hearings

After trial, the court held that Mr. Huang and Ms. Zhang had a verbal altercation over the matter of picking toon, and after the two parties reached an agreement stipulating that Mr. Huang would compensate Ms. Zhang for 1,000 yuan, the two parties would no longer pursue the responsibility of both parties on this matter and settle it at one time. Although Mr. Huang later stated that the Agreement was not his true expression of intent, the Agreement was signed by himself, and there was no evidence to show that the Agreement was fraudulent, coercive or invalid, so the Agreement was an expression of the true intention of both parties and did not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, and should be valid.

Now that the two parties have fulfilled the agreement in accordance with the agreement, Mr. Huang's request for the return of the payment has no basis in law. The agreement states that the two parties will settle the matter at once, and Mr. Huang can no longer claim the loss of his backpack to Ms. Zhang. Therefore, Mr. Huang's litigation claim had no basis in law and the court did not support it.

After the verdict was pronounced, Mr. Huang appealed, and the original judgment was upheld in the second instance. The judgment is now in force.

Judge's Statement

A civil settlement agreement is a dispute resolution solution voluntarily reached by the two parties to the dispute, which is a contract under civil law and has the legal effect of confirming the civil rights and obligations of both parties. The Agreement signed between Mr. Huang and Ms. Zhang states that "the two parties will no longer pursue the responsibility of both parties on this matter and settle it at one time", which means that both parties voluntarily abandon all requests other than those agreed in the Agreement, so Mr. Huang can no longer claim compensation for the damage.

To determine whether the Agreement signed between Mr. Huang and Ms. Zhang in this case is valid, it should comply with the provisions of the Civil Code on the validity of civil juristic acts. Article 143 of the Civil Code stipulates that "civil juristic acts that meet the following conditions are valid: (1) the actor has the corresponding capacity for civil conduct; (2) the intention is true; (3) it does not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, and it does not violate public order and good customs." ”

In this case, Mr. Huang was an adult with full capacity for civil conduct, had the ability to express his true intentions, and should bear corresponding responsibility for his actions. Mr. Huang claimed that he failed to make a true expression of intent when he signed the Agreement with Ms. Zhang, and that Ms. Zhang "blackmailed" Mr. Huang to make compensation by sitting on the ground, so he requested the court to revoke the Agreement and demand the return of 1,000 yuan in compensation.

Article 150 of the Civil Code stipulates that if a party coerces a party to commit a civil juristic act carried out by the other party against its true intentions, the coerced party has the right to request the people's court or arbitration institution to revoke it. Coercion refers to the threat of impending damage, and the content of the threat often involves endangering the health, life, property, etc. of the other party and his relatives and friends, forcing the other party to develop fear and therefore act contrary to the true intention. At the same time, the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that the parties have the responsibility to provide evidence for their own claims.

In this case, although Mr. Huang claimed that the Agreement signed under Ms. Zhang's "coercion" was inconsistent with her true intentions, Ms. Zhang's act of "lying on the ground" was not enough to make Mr. Huang sign a settlement agreement out of fear, and Mr. Huang's so-called "coercion" did not constitute an act of coercion in civil law that could lead to the revocation of the civil act. Mr. Wong also failed to provide other evidence to prove that Ms. Cheung had acted under duress, so Mr. Wong should bear the risk of losing the case.

"Harmony is precious" is the traditional virtue of the Chinese nation, after the occurrence of disputes, the subject of the dispute should fully communicate, properly handle negative emotions, mutual understanding, mutual courtesy, so as to reach a consensus to resolve the dispute. After the settlement agreement is signed, both parties shall uphold the principle of good faith, properly perform the obligations and responsibilities established in the agreement, and should not arbitrarily regret it.

(The characters in the text are pseudonyms)