Get job information from the mobile app
Use WeChat to agree on the work content and remuneration with the employer
Settle wages on WeChat......
Once the work is done, the money is not available
What to do?
Let's take a look at this example
Basic facts of the case
Ren, his father and younger brother are all migrant workers who have been engaged in the decoration business for many years. In May 2022, after Ren saw the work information released by a company through a mobile phone APP, he contacted the company's legal representative Wang (WeChat name "Brave") by phone, and reached an agreement with Wang through WeChat on May 28, 2022, and Ren contracted the community decoration project. Wang agreed on the construction content and payment conditions of the project through telephone and WeChat chat, and promised to "settle the accounts".
During the construction period, Wang paid a total of 18,500 yuan to Ren through WeChat transfer, but after Ren completed the construction, Wang did not pay the remaining remuneration. According to Wang's request, after Ren provided him with the details of the final payment, Wang has been in a state of "lost contact", and Ren sued the Qingxu Court to demand that the company pay him 27,101.5 yuan in labor fees and 1,088.2 yuan in overdue interest. However, the company argued that it did not have an employment relationship with Ren, had never reconciled accounts with Ren, and did not confirm that "Yong" was Wang's WeChat name, and claimed that it should not be held liable because the subject was not qualified.
Trial in accordance with law
During the trial, the presiding judge took into account the plaintiff's lack of legal awareness and failed to retain direct evidence in the course of his business dealings with the defendant, and if the plaintiff's claim was simply dismissed on the grounds that there was "no direct evidence", his hard-earned money would be wasted. After that, the judge looked up the relevant legal provisions and held that the company was a limited liability company wholly owned by natural persons, that Wang was the legal representative of a wholly natural person-owned company, that his chat with Ren could represent the company, and that the company did not provide evidence to prove that the user with the WeChat name "Yongzhi" was not Wang himself, nor did it provide evidence to prove that Wang carried out business activities in his personal name in addition to the company's name. Ren completed the work and delivered the work results according to the company's requirements, and the company paid remuneration, and the two parties had a contractual relationship. After the completion of the project at the end of September 2022, the company did not pay Ren's remaining remuneration, and its behavior constituted a breach of contract and should bear the liability for breach of contract. Ren asserted that his residual remuneration was 27,101.5 yuan, and because sufficient evidence was not provided to prove the amount of his residual remuneration, the people's court determined that the residual remuneration was 20,000 yuan based on the content of Ren and Wang's WeChat chat.
What the judge said
A contract is a contract in which the contractor completes the work and delivers the work results according to the requirements of the contractor, and the contractor pays remuneration. In this case, although the plaintiff claimed that the defendant should pay the labor fee, the two parties were essentially a contract dispute. In practice, when the two parties reach an agreement but do not sign a written contract, it is difficult to determine whether the contractual relationship between the two parties is established and to determine the price.
In this case, a WeChat chat record became the key evidence. When determining the probative force of the chat records, the court determined the authenticity of the chat records in combination with the fact that the company had the ability to provide the chat records but failed to provide them, and then found that the two parties reached an agreement to contract, refuted the company's claim that it was trying to evade liability, and supported Ren's claim of "requiring the company to pay the remaining unpaid remuneration", thus protecting the legitimate rights and interests of migrant workers in a timely and effective manner.
Neither party appealed after the verdict was pronounced.
Director/Duan Ruizhong Producer/Yu Yanhong Duty Officer/Wang Wukui Producer/Yan Kai Chen Zhengfei Graphic Editor/Han Jinnan Source: Shanxi High Court, Qingxu Court
The copyright belongs to the original author and may not be reproduced without permission