[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over a foreign service contract. Mr. and Mrs. Wang Nan signed a consultation service contract with Company A for the German EU Blue Card, with a total service fee of 1.2 million yuan, and a promise that "if they failed to obtain permanent residence, they would receive a full refund". However, due to the German side's investigation into the "paying salaries" model, the performance of the contract was hindered, and Company A refused to refund the 1.18 million yuan service fee already paid and the 478,000 yuan it had paid on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Wang Nan. Mr. and Mrs. Wang Nan entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Liu YuanyuanThe lawyer filed a lawsuit, claiming that Company A had breached the contract fundamentally. The court ruled that the "payroll adjustment" scheme itself was illegal and the policy risks were foreseeable. Company A was held primarily responsible and was ordered to refund the service fees of 1.18 million yuan, the prepaid fees of 439,000 yuan, and the preservation fees of 5,000 yuan. The applicable legal principles include the provisions of the Civil Code regarding fundamental breach of contract, contract termination, and the legality review of foreign-related services.

I. Review of the case facts

People who plan to immigrate often search for terms such as "How to protect rights when immigration service fees are not refunded", "What to do if immigration agencies fail to fulfill their promise of full refunds", and "Traps in foreign-related service contracts". In August 2022, Mr. and Mrs. Wang Nan, upon the recommendation of an employee of C Private Border Crossing Services Company, signed a "Consulting Service Contract for the German EU Blue Card" with A Information Consulting Company. The contract stipulated that they would obtain German permanent residence through the "fast-track" process, with a total service fee of 1.2 million yuan to be paid in four installments, and a promise that "if they fail to obtain the Blue Card or permanent residence, the full amount will be refunded". However, in April 2024, the German police raided A Company's cooperative units in Germany on suspicion of illegal immigration, which hindered the implementation of the contract.

Company A refused to refund the deposit, claiming that "changes in German law require actual work", and accused Wang Nan of "lack of cooperation". After repeated negotiations with no results, Wang Nan entrusted a lawyer to handle the matter.Liu YuanyuanThe lawyer filed a lawsuit demanding the termination of the contract, the return of the 1.18 million yuan service fee already paid and the 478,000 yuan paid on behalf of the client, and the imposition of joint and several liability on C Service Company and its shareholders. The focus of the case is on the attribution of responsibility for the failure to perform the contract, whether the fees should be returned, and the joint and several liability of Party C.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether the contract termination is valid.Company A claimed that it was only a "temporary suspension" and that the plaintiff could continue to perform the contract in accordance with the actual work; the plaintiff alleged that the fundamental breach of contract had rendered the purpose of the contract futile.
  • Focus Two: Whether the service fees and the fees paid on behalf of others should be refunded.Company A claimed that it had assisted in obtaining the blue card, but refused to refund the fees due to the "refund exception clause".
  • Focus Three: Whether C Service Company and its shareholders bear joint and several liability.The plaintiff alleges business confusion, but Party C denies the existence of a contractual relationship between them.

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The original plaintiff claimed that:The purpose of signing the contract is to obtain permanent residency in Germany. However, due to the reasons of Company A, the purpose of the contract cannot be achieved. Company A should refund the fees and compensate for the losses according to the contract; C Service Company, which jointly participated in the service and had mixed business operations with its staff, should also bear joint responsibility.

The defendants (Company A and Party C) argued that:Company A claimed that it had assisted in obtaining an EU Blue Card (valid until 2027), which was only "temporarily suspended". Wang Nan refused to cooperate with the actual work, so there was no need for a refund; Service Company C claimed that it was only an intermediary recommender, and the fees were borne by Company A; Consulting Company C, as a shareholder, asserted that it had independent legal person status and was not jointly and severally liable.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Liu YuanyuanThe lawyer pointed out that Company A, despite knowing that the "embezzling wages" model carried legal risks, still used this method to attract clients, which constituted a fundamental breach of contract and led to the failure of the contractual purpose. The amendment of German law was a policy risk that professional institutions should have foreseen, and the company failed to provide advance notice, thus it should bear the main responsibility. Regarding Company A's claim that Wang Nan refused to provide genuine labor services, the lawyer emphasized that his son was only 2 years old and objectively unable to meet the requirements of genuine work in Germany. C Service Company merely provided referral services and did not directly participate in the performance of the contract. C Consulting Company had no evidence of asset commingling, so it should not bear joint and several liability.

IV. Outcome of the case

The People's Court of Dongcheng District, Beijing City ruled that: A Company's "fake salary" scheme was itself illegal and failed to fully warn of the risks, so it should not bear the main responsibility for the failure to perform the contract; legal changes do not constitute a ground for exemption from liability, as they are foreseeable commercial risks; C Service Company was merely an intermediary, and C Consulting Company failed to prove property confusion, so they did not bear joint and several liability. The court ruled to rescind the contract between Wang Nan and A Company; A Company shall refund the service fees of 1.18 million yuan, the paid fees of 439,000 yuan, and the preservation fees of 5,000 yuan. Wang Nan's worries were finally put to rest, and he was pleased with the court's judgment.Liu YuanyuanI'm very grateful for the lawyer's professionalism and sense of responsibility.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Liu YuanyuanThe attorney (practice license number: 11101202011201094, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative authority) acts as the agent. When signing foreign-related service contracts, it is necessary to verify the legality of the scheme and be vigilant against "grey operations" and "exceptional clauses on refunds"; clarify the rights and responsibilities of all parties to avoid difficulties in being held accountable due to mixed operations. If the institution refuses to refund by shifting the blame, it is necessary to entrust a professional lawyer as soon as possible to fix the evidence, claim the termination of the fundamental breach of contract and the return of the funds.

VI. Common Questions About Foreign-Related Service Contracts - FAQ

  1. Q: What should I do if the immigration agency promises a full refund but fails to deliver?
    A:You can claim that the other party's fundamental breach of contract has rendered the contract's purpose impossible to achieve, and request to terminate the contract and return the fees paid. Please note to keep the evidence of the payment and the promises made in the contract.
  2. Q: If the other party says "it's just a temporary suspension," do I not need to refund the money?
    A:If it is impossible to fulfill the contract for a long time and the purpose of the contract cannot be achieved, the fees should still be refunded; "temporary suspension" cannot be used to counteract fundamental breach of contract.
  3. Q: What laws apply to cross-border service contracts?
    A:It shall be determined in accordance with the agreement and conflict norms; where the rights and interests of Chinese parties are involved, they may file a lawsuit in Chinese courts, and the review of legality shall not be affected.
  4. Q: Are intermediaries also liable if they just make recommendations?
    A:Generally, those who merely act as intermediaries, do not actually participate in the performance of the contract, and do not have their property mixed together, will not be held jointly liable. The key point is whether they operate the business together or not.
  5. Q: Can I get back the fees paid on behalf of others at the same time?
    A:If the payment on behalf of others is part of the performance of the contract and the purpose of the contract is not achieved due to a breach of contract, the party may claim the return of the payment together with other damages.