Recently, in Ningbo, Zhejiang, a parent with a child posted that he spent 78,000 yuan to send his son to kindergarten, but was sued by the kindergarten for more than 1.1 million yuan. His bank card was frozen. The trigger turned out to be a 5,000 yuan refund dispute between the two parties, which attracted attention. .
The parent posted that his son attends a local kindergarten and the annual tuition and meal expenses are more than 70,000 yuan. On August 29 this year, the kindergarten sent a refund application form, stating that the refund amount was 16,068 yuan. Parents had no objection to this amount. On September 12, he received a call from the kindergarten of 8,479 yuan. Since he had not received the full amount (more than 7,500 yuan was refunded, but the parents claimed that the tuition refund was 5,000 yuan), he communicated with the kindergarten. The park’s finance department told me that only 8,479 yuan would be refunded. I had miscalculated the previous amount. Subsequently, he posted several online posts demanding refunds from the park. "On October 13, I found out that my bank card had been frozen, and then I found out that I was being sued by the kindergarten for "exorbitant prices.""
A parent's post triggered a lawsuit. Image source/Internet screenshot
The parent posted a complaint about a suspected kindergarten. It showed that the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, the parent, expired in August, but the defendant published 4 articles on social platforms, such as "Ningbo Kindergarten's Lightning Protection" "Retreat, retreat, bow your head" and other inflammatory words...smear the plaintiff and the plaintiff's teachers and administrators, maliciously attack and criticize the plaintiff with false remarks, and even fabricate facts, malicious slander, and damage the reputation of the park, etc. (The park) caused huge economic losses, and the defendant should bear corresponding tort liability. It is requested that the defendant be ordered to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses of 1,119,000 yuan and to stop infringing on the plaintiff's reputation.
On December 18, a reporter from Upstream News (report email: [email protected]) contacted the parent. She sent the relevant court case number to confirm and expressed her welcome to come and watch on January 4 next year.
Upstream news reporters contacted the park. A staff member said that he was not sure and would wait until the final court decision and believed in the court's decision.
Subsequently, the upstream news reporter contacted another woman who claimed to be a shareholder of the kindergarten. According to the woman, the reason was that the school teacher privately sent an incorrect refund form to the parent without approval. The parent had not paid part of the tuition fees and the relevant fees needed to be deducted. The two parties had a dispute over the fees. "From my level, we have apologized to her, and we have admitted that we made mistakes in management. But the parents persisted, refused to communicate, and demanded a refund based on the amount sent." She said that there was communication between the two parties. There were corresponding chat records, but the parents ignored it and insisted on requesting refunds, posted many times, and even cursed, personally attacked, and exposed relevant private information.
The park sued for more than 1.1 million yuan. Picture source/Internet screenshot
"The parents' attitude is like this. We want to say that communication is meaningless." The woman also revealed that the public security department had intervened in the matter, "Because after reading these posts, there were almost a dozen or two More than a dozen parents, as well as potential ones, may simply choose not to come without telling us. Therefore, our actual loss is definitely more than 1 million, and the annual tuition fee for a child is 70,000 to 80,000 yuan," she said. It said that the case will be held in court on January 4 next year. "(Relevant evidence) We have collected evidence and notarized it."
In response, the Basic Education Section of the Ningbo Yinzhou District Education Bureau to which the kindergarten belongs responded that the kindergarten is a private for-profit kindergarten and has its own related fees. standard. As for the kindergarten taking the parents to court, it is a civil dispute between the two parties.
According to the case number provided by the parent, upstream news reporters inquired through the local judicial hotline 12368 and found that the case will indeed be heard in the local Yinzhou District Court on January 4, 2024.
In this regard, lawyer Pan Xingwang, a partner of Chongqing Kunyuan Hengtai Law Firm, said that the right of reputation itself is not property and does not have economic benefits that can be exchanged. However, because this right is directly related to the acquisition and loss of property rights of citizens and legal persons, , therefore infringement of reputation rights will also affect the property rights and interests of citizens and legal persons. In addition, the costs and expenses incurred to restore the victim's reputation also fall within the scope of property damage. Property damage includes both the loss of existing property and the loss of available benefits.As long as the consequences are caused by the infringement of the right of reputation, the infringer should compensate in full. If the kindergarten believes that there is a causal relationship between the child's failure to attend the kindergarten and the violation of his reputation, the kindergarten should provide evidence to prove it. Even if it is true that the infringement caused the loss of the child's failure to enter the kindergarten, the entire cost of the parents' failure to enter the kindergarten cannot be used as the data for claiming compensation, and the corresponding expenses, etc. should also be excluded.
Upstream News Reporter Zhu Ting
