[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over a service contract. Wang Xiaohua, a 70-year-old elderly man, has recharged more than one million yuan at A Health Technology Company's store for over a decade. However, in 2023, he was deceived into borrowing 1.19 million yuan to recharge, and the A Company received the cash without providing a receipt. Wang Xiaohua has entrusted the Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case for him.Xiong BinrongThe lawyer requested to rescind the contract and get a full refund, with Zhou Jie bearing joint and several liability. The first-instance court ruled to refund 608,699 yuan, with Zhou Jie bearing joint and several liability; Company A and Zhou Jie appealed, and the second-instance court upheld the original ruling. The lawyer used a 160,000 yuan receipt, a service card, a repayment commitment letter, WeChat messages, and police videos to establish liability. Legal provisions applied: relevant provisions on service contracts and debt assumption.

I. Review of the Case Facts

Can the elderly get a refund if they are tricked into recharging at a wellness store? The involved parties often search for terms like "what to do if you can't get a refund after recharging at a wellness store", "does the employee's commitment letter count as joint and several liability", and "how to prove cash payments without receipts". Since 2013, Wang Xiaohua has received foot massages and moxibustion at A Company's outlets, and over the past decade, she has recharged more than one million yuan. In May 2023, employee Zhou Jie recommended and deceived her into borrowing money to recharge for "Xiao Zong's project" and "Qi Jing Ba Mai" totaling 1.19 million yuan. A Company always required cash payments without issuing receipts, only giving service cards and instructing her to "not tell her children". When Wang Xiaohua's son noticed the abnormalities and requested receipts, he was rejected. Zhou Jie signed a "repayment commitment letter" to refund part of the money, but the remaining 680,000 yuan remains unpaid. Wang Xiaohua has entrusted a lawyer to handle the case.Xiong BinrongThe lawyer filed a lawsuit, demanding the termination of the contract, a full refund, and joint and several liability for Zhou Jie.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether the service contract relationship between Wang Xiaohua and Company A has been established and the amount of money that should be refunded.The actual contract corresponds to the refund for the remaining services.
  • Focus Two: Whether Zhou Jie constitutes debt assumption and bears joint and several liability.The nature of the commitment letter and the commitment made on WeChat.
  • Focus 3: Whether A Company's defense that "the new company should not bear the old debts" is valid.The evidence of the subject and the receipt of the funds.

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Law Firm

The original complaint stated that:Wang Xiaohua claimed that he had formed a de facto service contract with Company A, and demanded that the contract be terminated, that Company A return 608,699 yuan, and that Zhou Jie bear joint and several liability.

The defendant (Company A and Zhou Jie) argued that:Company A claimed that it only took over in October 2023 and the old models hadn't been recorded in the accounts. Zhou Jie argued that her actions were part of her official duties and she shouldn't be held responsible, and that the actual charges for the service cards including the complimentary items were lower than what was advertised.

Legal Opinion by Hengluo Law Firm:Xiong BinrongThe lawyer submitted key evidence in court: A company's receipt for the project payment of 160,000 yuan on August 21, 2023 (stamped with the company's official seal), service cards, Zhou Jie's repayment promise letter, WeChat chat records ("using her own money to make up for the shortage"), and the police interview video (in which Zhou Jie acknowledged the total amount of 210,000 yuan and the jade worth 120,000 yuan). The lawyer pointed out that the receipt being stamped with the company's official seal and the business registration information showing that Zhou Jie had once served as the financial director were sufficient to prove the service contract relationship; Zhou Jie's statement that she "used her own money to make up for the shortage" was clear, and combined with the signed repayment promise letter and the actual repayment, it constituted a voluntary assumption of debt rather than a duty-related action; during the police investigation, she personally acknowledged the amounts, and the remaining number of service card uses corresponded to the payments, making the repayment calculation reasonable. In the second instance, the lawyer vigorously defended against the appellant's arguments such as "the new company should not bear the old debts" and "the store being registered under another company's name", and successfully determined the liability of the parties involved.

IV. Outcome of the case

The first-instance court determined that a factual service contract relationship existed between the two parties, and after deducting the 8,0001 yuan that Zhou Jie had already refunded, A Company should refund 608,699 yuan. Zhou Jie's commitment letter and WeChat commitment constituted "debt assumption" and joint and several liability. The court ruled to terminate the service contract, with A Company required to refund 608,699 yuan and Zhou Jie bearing joint and several liability. A Company and Zhou Jie appealed, and in the second-instance trial, the lawyer used the receipt stamped with the company's official seal, Zhou Jie's status as the company's financial director, and the videos from WeChat and the police to determine liability. The court confirmed the authenticity of the contractual relationship, the validity of the debt assumption, and the correspondence between the payment and the services provided. The court dismissed the appeal, upheld the original judgment, and ruled that the elderly plaintiff had fully won the case and recovered over 600,000 yuan in compensation.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law FirmXiong BinrongThe lawyer (practice license number: 11101202211410897, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent. Elderly people should ask for receipts when making purchases and avoid making large cash payments; employees who promise to "make up the payment" or "repay the debt" in their own name may constitute debt assumption. If the merchant shifts the blame by saying "subcontracting" or "taking over", you can use stamped receipts, chat records, and police transcripts to pin down the responsibility and promptly entrust a lawyer to protect your rights.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Refund Disputes in Healthcare Consumption

  1. Q: What should I do if I can't get a refund after recharging at a health-care store?
    A:You can use the receipt, service card, and chat records to prove the contractual relationship and the remaining number of sessions, and then request to terminate the contract and get a refund for the corresponding amount.
  2. Q: Does the employee's commitment letter constitute joint and several liability?
    A:If an employee explicitly promises to "use their own money to make up for the shortage" and signs a repayment commitment, and the actual refund takes place, this may constitute the employee assuming joint and several liability for the debt.
  3. Q: How can I prove that I made a cash payment without a receipt?
    A:The evidence chain can be formed by combining the number of service cards, WeChat records, police transcripts, and the amount admitted by the other party.
  4. Q: If the merchant says they won't honor old debts after taking over, is that valid?
    A:Invalid. The stamped receipt and the actual service relationship can prove liability, and a change in the subject does not exempt from debt obligations.
  5. Q: Can the elderly get a refund if they are tricked into borrowing money to top up their accounts?
    A:Yes. You can claim that you were deceived and that the purpose of the contract was not achieved, and request to terminate the contract and refund the corresponding unconsumed funds.