[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over a network service contract. On November 18, 2021, Wang Li signed a "Network Information Service Contract" and a "Technical Service Contract" with Company A, with a total contract price of 110,500 yuan. Wang Li paid a deposit of 50,000 yuan for the equipment. Later, the two parties agreed to terminate the contract, but Company A failed to refund the deposit. Wang Li sued for the refund of 34,433 yuan in service fees, 3,000 yuan in legal fees, and interest. Company A counter-sued, claiming that Wang Li owed a balance of 60,500 yuan and breached the contract, and sought 33,150 yuan in breach of contract damages. In the first instance, the court ruled in favor of Wang Li. After Company A appealed, Beijing Henglu Law Firm handled the case.Xue SuhuaAt the second instance, attorney Wang Li presented his defense, and the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment. The core disputes include the ownership of the equipment, the breach of contract regarding the balance payment, and the validity of the refund application form. The applicable legal provisions include the Contract Law regarding the termination of contracts and the validity of stamped documents.

I. Review of the case

When signing a network service contract, if the other party refuses to refund the equipment deposit and even accuses you of breaching the contract, what should you do? This is a common pain point in enterprise service contract disputes. On November 18, 2021, Wang Li signed a "Network Information Service Contract" and a "Technical Service Contract" with Company A, agreeing that Company A would provide Wang Li with short-video business equipment and technical services. The total contract price was 110,500 yuan, and Wang Li paid a 50,000 yuan equipment deposit as agreed. During the performance of the contract, the two parties agreed to terminate the contract through consultation. Company A promised to refund part of the payment but failed to do so. Wang Li sued to demand a refund of 34,433 yuan in service fees, 3,000 yuan in attorney's fees, and interest, as well as the defendant to bear the litigation costs. Company A counter-sued, claiming that Wang Li's failure to pay the remaining 60,500 yuan constituted a breach of contract and seeking 33,150 yuan in breach of contract damages. The first-instance court determined that the two parties had agreed on a refund through WeChat and a stamped refund application form, and that there was no breach of contract penalty clause in the contract. The court ordered Company A to refund the money and dismissed the counter-claim. Company A appealed against the judgment.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Disputes over the ownership of equipment.Company A claimed that the mobile phone was purchased by Wang Li himself, so could the contract terms and the refund application form be used to refute his claim that the equipment was purchased by the company?
  • Focus Two: Defense against breach of contract regarding the final payment.The two parties have negotiated to terminate the contract and confirmed the refund by signing an agreement. It remains to be determined whether Wang Li still owes the balance of the payment and whether there is any basis for A Company's claim for breach of contract damages.
  • Focus 3: Evidential Effect of the Refund Application Form.Company A claimed that the application form only had a stamp but no signature, and it was not approved by the leadership. Could the stamped document prove the refund agreement?

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Lawyers

The appellant (Company A) alleged that:Claiming that the 50,000 yuan is an actual payment rather than a deposit, the refund application form is not valid without the signature of the relevant department, and Wang Li's failure to pay the balance constitutes a breach of contract. Request to revoke the first-instance judgment and support the counterclaim.

The appellee's (Wang Li's) position:The two parties have explicitly agreed to terminate the contract via WeChat. The refund application form signed by Company A clearly states the amount of the refund and the basis for it. There is no factual or legal basis for the penalty clause.

Legal opinion of Hengluo Law Firm:Xue SuhuaThe lawyer presented the details of the "Technical Service Contract" in court, which stated that devices such as the iPhone 6s were provided by Company A for the project, with the note "one-time fee". The refund application form's clause on "charges for damaged phones" also indirectly proved that the devices belonged to Company A. The lawyer emphasized that the parties had agreed to terminate the contract via WeChat and signed the refund application form, which confirmed the refund amount. He pointed out that the application form was mailed by Company A to Wang Li after it was stamped, which should be regarded as Company A's acknowledgement of the refund amount. The lawyer accurately grasped the key points and formed a complete chain of evidence.

  • We refuted the claim of "equipment purchase" based on the contract terms, proving that the ownership of the equipment belongs to Company A
  • Denying the responsibility for unpaid payments based on the fact of termination of the contract, and proving that the penalty for breach of contract has no basis
  • The legal provisions enhance the effectiveness of stamped documents, and the refund agreement is deemed to have been established

IV. Outcome of the case

The appellate court reviewed and concluded that the evidence submitted by our side formed a complete closed loop, which was sufficient to prove the legality of the termination of the contract and the refund between the two parties. A Company's grounds for appeal lacked factual and legal basis, and the final judgment dismissed the appeal and upheld the original verdict (A Company was ordered to refund the service fee of 34,433 yuan, the attorney's fee of 3,000 yuan, and the interest, and all counterclaims were dismissed). From the first instance to the second instance, Attorney Xue always put the client's interests at the core, accurately grasped the focus of the case, and carefully sorted out the evidence, successfully dismissing all the claims of the opposing party.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Advice

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law FirmXue SuhuaThe attorney (practice license number: 11101201211769926, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent. Attorney's advice: When signing a network service contract, it is necessary to clearly stipulate the rights and obligations, refund conditions, and breach of contract liabilities; documents such as the refund application form confirmed by the other party's stamp have legal effect, and the defense based on "no signature or without the leader's approval" usually cannot deny their validity. In the event of a service contract dispute, it is necessary to consult a professional lawyer in time and safeguard one's rights and interests through legal means.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Disputes over Online Service Contracts

  1. Q: What should I do if the other party refuses to refund the fees after the termination of the online service contract through negotiation?
    A:Collect evidence such as WeChat records and stamped refund application forms to prove the agreement on termination and refund, and sue for the return of service fees and interest. In this case, the plaintiff's claim was supported by the court.
  2. Q: Is the refund form stamped by the other party valid if it's not signed?
    A:It is valid. Company-stamped documents have legal effect, and simply arguing that they lack signatures or have not undergone internal approval generally cannot negate their external validity.
  3. Q: If there's no penalty clause in the contract, can the other party still demand it?
    A:No. The absence of a penalty clause lacks legal basis. In this case, A Company's counterclaim for penalty damages was completely dismissed.
  4. Q: Is the equipment provided by the company or do I need to buy it myself? How can I prove this?
    A:By reviewing the details and notes of the service contract, combined with provisions such as "equipment deduction fees" in the refund form, it can be confirmed that the ownership of the equipment belongs to the service provider.
  5. Q: How can I overturn the other party's appeal in the second instance?
    A:The defense was organized around the closed-loop of evidence and the application of law. The ownership of the equipment, the liability for breach of contract, and the validity of the documents were addressed one by one. In the second instance of this case, the original judgment was upheld.