Then how do you tell stories? How about doing a problem? Case 1: Is the bank savings service promise of "I miss you for one minute and I will pay you one yuan" effective and credible? [Case Introduction]1On July 6, 1996, Chen Mou went to the bank to handle a current savings deposit of 7 500 yuan. On August 12, when Chen Mou went to the bank to withdraw money, he found that his deposit had been taken away by others. After investigation by the public security organs, the suspect was arrested and all the money was collected. On February 3rd, 65438, Chen Mou withdrew a deposit from the bank. Chen Mou believes that the bank's management negligence has delayed its withdrawal for more than 65,438+000 days. According to the bank's savings service promise of "I miss you for one minute, and I will compensate you for one yuan", the bank should compensate for the losses during the delay. In the lawsuit, the court supported Chen Mou's claim, and the bank won a good reputation through practical actions. [Legal Analysis] This case mainly involves the promise of bank savings service. The promise of "one minute delay, one yuan compensation" is the quality and credit guarantee put forward by banks to depositors, and it is also one of the measures to strengthen internal management and improve service quality. Different from the bank's stipulation that "two people come to the counter, subject to re-examination", "one minute less, one yuan for compensation" is a civil act that embodies the principle of fairness, honesty and credit, and it is an acceptable offer for depositors, while "two people come to the counter, subject to re-examination" is a unilateral mandatory stipulation of the bank and cannot reflect the wishes of depositors. The potential conditions of "one minute delay, one yuan compensation" are as follows: (1) The promised object must be all depositors who make savings in banks or banking systems; (2) The reasons for delaying depositors' deposit and withdrawal activities are subjective reasons of banks, such as the inexperience of depositors and human failure of internal computers. (3) As long as the delay occurs, the depositor should pay compensation regardless of whether there is any loss. Therefore, if the bank's delay is due to other objective reasons or force majeure, such as city-wide power outage, computer virus infection and so on. There is no compensation problem in the bank. Since the target of the commitment is the vast number of depositors, all depositors who have a savings relationship with the bank may get compensation for delayed withdrawal. The legal basis of "I miss you for one minute and pay you one yuan" is the legal provisions on offer and acceptance and the validity of the contract. After a natural person or an economic organization delivers a deposit to a bank and the bank issues a deposit receipt, a deposit relationship is formed between the two parties. Banks should fulfill their obligation to withdraw depositors' deposits and interest on time according to law. "Paying you one yuan a minute by mistake is a concrete manifestation of the bank's obligation to withdraw deposits and interest from depositors, and should be regarded as an offer for the bank to establish a deposit relationship with depositors. 14 of the Contract Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) (hereinafter referred to as the Contract Law) passed in March, 1999 stipulates: "An offer is an expression of intention to conclude a contract with others, which shall meet the following conditions: (1) The contents shall be specifically determined. (2) indicates that the offeror has made a commitment. Article 19 stipulates that an offer shall not be revoked under any of the following circumstances: (1) the offeror has fixed the time limit for acceptance or made it clear in other ways that the offer is irrevocable; (2) The offeree has reason to believe that the offer is irrevocable and has made preparations for the performance of the contract. If you miss a minute, you will get one yuan compensation as part of the bank discount. Once a commitment is made to society, it is generally not easy to change, and it is binding on depositors and banks. Banks must keep their promises. If they withdraw their promises at will, it is equivalent to changing the content of the savings relationship between banks and depositors. Social promises like "I miss you for a minute, and I'll pay you one yuan" can be seen everywhere, such as "kids can't cheat", "lose one for ten" and "lack of fire and no money", but not many people really fight for it. In this case, Chen Mou's commitment to the World Bank is serious, not without legal basis. It is reasonable and legal for the court to rule that the bank is liable for compensation according to law. 2. Is the provision of "two people coming out of the closet, subject to review" fair to depositors? [Case Introduction]1997 April 15, Han went to a savings office to deposit money. Bookkeeper Liu initially determined that the cash deposit was 5,000 yuan. After filling in the passbook and deposit slip and affixing the seal, he handed the cash to reviewer Zhang. After checking, Zhang decided that it was 4 900 yuan, less than the receipt 100 yuan, so he transferred the cash from Liu to Han. Han insisted that the cash amount was 5,000 yuan, and the bookkeeper Liu's first trial was also 5,000 yuan, so he refused. The two sides had a dispute over this and appealed to the court. In the lawsuit, the bank refused to take responsibility based on the internal rule of "two people come to the counter for review". [Legal analysis] "When two people come to the counter, the recheck shall prevail" is the internal rule and system for banks to handle savings, that is, the withdrawal amount of savings shall prevail. If there are differences between the preliminary examination and the review, the amount is inconsistent and there are counterfeit banknotes, the preliminary examination shall prevail and the results of the review shall prevail. This provision is conducive to strengthening the internal savings management of banks, preventing bank wear and tear and reducing savings risks. However, as an internal regulation, this regulation has only internal effect and no external effect. In fact, this provision is not a standard for binding the rights and obligations between depositors and banks. Therefore, it is inappropriate and unfair to use it against depositors. Legally, we have no clear and specific provisions on this at present, and similar principled provisions still have a certain guiding role. The court also used the method of jurisprudence analysis when hearing this case. Article 3 of General Principles of Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) (hereinafter referred to as General Principles of Civil Law) stipulates: "The parties have equal status in civil activities. Article 4 stipulates: "Civil activities should follow the principles of voluntariness, fairness, equal compensation, honesty and credibility", Article 5 of the Contract Law stipulates that the parties should follow the principle of fairness to determine the rights and obligations of all parties, and Article 6 stipulates: "The parties should follow the principle of honesty and credibility when exercising their rights and performing their obligations. Therefore, the legislation regards honesty, credit, fairness and equality as important guidelines to guide economic life. The internal regulations put forward by the bank during the trial of this case completely violated the principle of fairness and equality. For depositors, it is essentially a format clause unilaterally stipulated by the bank, similar to the notice in the store. It has the same nature as the notice of "once sold, it will not be returned", that is, "self-interest is unfavorable". The contract law has clear provisions on standard clauses. Article 39 of the Law stipulates: "Where a contract is concluded by standard terms, the party providing the standard terms shall follow the principle of fairness to determine the rights and obligations between the parties, and take reasonable measures to draw the attention of the other party to the terms exempting or limiting its liability, and explain the terms according to the requirements of the other party. The so-called standard clauses refer to the clauses drafted in advance by the parties in order to reuse them, without consulting with each other when concluding the contract. "Article 40 of the Contract Law stipulates that if the party providing the format clause exempts its responsibility, aggravates the other party's responsibility and excludes the other party's main rights, the clause is invalid." These provisions show that the contract terms should be concluded in accordance with the principles of fairness, equality, honesty and credibility, reflecting the true meaning of the parties to the contract, rather than the rules of conduct that one party uses its economic advantage or social status to force the other party to accept. Specific to this case, bookkeeper Liu initially determined that Han's deposit amount was 5,000 yuan, which actually confirmed that Han's deposit amount was correct. Zhang's review is essentially to confirm the accuracy of Liu's work, not the accuracy of Han's deposit amount. Since Han handed over the money to Liu, Han has had a legal relationship with the bank. If Zhang's review is the main body, for Han, Liu is redundant. In other words, even if Liu miscalculated, if he didn't return the money to the key point of Korea, it means that the bank has recognized the accuracy of Korean deposits. If you return the money to the key point of Korea, it means that the bank does not recognize the accuracy of the deposit amount of Korea. In this case, Liu directly handed over the money to Zhang for review after placing the initial order, and the savings risk has been transferred to the bank. If the audit is wrong, the responsibility can only be on the bank, not on the depositor. The mistake of "two people come to the counter, subject to review" lies in unfairly transferring the savings risk to the depositor, which is an illegal act of "exempting the depositor from responsibility and aggravating the other party's responsibility" according to the provisions of the contract law. In this regard, article 4 1 of the law stipulates: "If there is any dispute about the understanding of the format clause, it shall be interpreted according to the usual understanding. If there are more than two interpretations of the standard terms, an interpretation that is not conducive to the party providing the standard terms shall be made. " According to the regulations, the interpretation of "two people come to the counter to check" should be: when the depositor gives the deposit to the first of the two people for counting, if the counting is correct, the initial point shall prevail. For banks, when they come to the counter, the audit shall prevail; For depositors, the two are in the counter, "the first point shall prevail." This understanding is in line with the spirit of legislation and there are legal provisions to follow. According to the provisions of the Contract Law, in this case, the bank should not only handle a savings deposit of 5,000 yuan for Korea, but also bear the responsibility for contracting negligence, which should be paid attention to. The savings relationship between Korea and the bank did not finally form, because the bank delayed Korea's savings because it followed the standard terms, and the responsibility lay with the bank. Article 42 of the Contract Law stipulates that in the process of concluding a contract, if one of the following circumstances causes losses to the other party, the parties shall be liable for damages: (1) negotiate in bad faith under the guise of concluding a contract; (2) Deliberately concealing important facts related to the conclusion of a contract or providing false information; (ten thousand) there are other acts that violate the principle of good faith. The behavior of the bank in this case belongs to the behavior specified in item (3) above. The loss caused to Korea is the loss of interest and other expenses caused by Korea's failure to deposit in time. This loss should not be underestimated. As a typical case, this case was actually handled in accordance with the relevant provisions of the General Principles of Civil Law. Now, according to the relevant provisions of the contract law, the basis for handling is more sufficient.

Adopt it