day before, the concern "everyone voted" and "Nuomiduo" for financing the public service caused by mutual litigation disputes in the first instance, Beijing City Court of Haidian (hereinafter referred to as the "Haidian court") formally concluded.
as the first public to raise financing dispute case, the case from the prosecution, the trial to sentencing, have triggered widespread concern about the industry and the media to raise the public.
in this case, the public to raise financing Beijing Nomido catering management limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as "Nomido") submitted by the public to raise financing project information disclosure untrue, and raise public financing platform of Beijing flying network technology Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "one vote") and raise public participation in projects to promote investors the disagreement, causing the public to raise financing Nomido and raise public financing platform between everyone launched to raise the public financing service termination notice, and the prosecution to the court to request the other party to bear the liability for breach of contract and other relevant liability.
this case contains two proceedings, on the one hand, all complaints Nuomiduo default claims 107 thousand yuan, including financing costs 44 thousand yuan, 44 thousand yuan of liquidated damages and economic loss of 19 thousand and 700 yuan; on the other hand, Nuomiduo counterclaim everyone voted breach of contract claims 226 thousand yuan, including the return of money invested 176 thousand yuan and pay the corresponding interest, compensation for losses 50 thousand yuan.
therefore, the court of first instance with the trial and verdict, 1) Nomido to pay everyone voted Commission financing costs 25 thousand and 200 yuan, 15 thousand yuan of liquidated damages; 2) everyone voted Nomido to return the money invested 167 thousand and 200 yuan; 3) rejected the request of other proceedings.
as the country’s first to get the court to raise public financing case, the case and the judgment of three legal aspects of concern.
will raise public finance service agreement is defined as "intermediary contract".
called the "contract" or "intermediary services" refers to the intermediary report to the client contract opportunity for entering into a contract or provides intermediary services, the client pays the contract, also known as "intermediary services".
simply said that before the introduction of regulatory rules to raise public, how to define the public to raise financing services agreement is to define the key to raise public financing illegal or not.
if the public financing is defined as the public offering of Securities Act, so the public to raise the platform to provide financing services is illegal, and the public to raise financing service agreement may be due to violation of the "Securities Law" provisions prohibiting or mandatory, is recognized as invalid contract.
if it is deemed to be an invalid contract, the property acquired by the contract shall be returned; if it cannot be returned or is not necessary to be returned, the compensation shall be made at a discount. The party who is in fault shall compensate the other party for the losses suffered by the other party. If both parties are at fault, they shall bear their respective responsibilities.
simply said that after the contract is invalid, it needs to be restored to its original state