Riding a folding bike through the night
It’s the norm for chauffeurs.
(Image source network, intrusion and deletion)
However, when a customer evades the order
Bitterly asking for fees to no avail
What to do?
Drivers usually become "exclusive drivers" of a platform by registering information on the platform, and provide services through the customer source information published by the platform.
In this case, how should the tripartite relationship between the passenger, the driver, and the platform be defined? Is there a labor relationship or labor relationship between the driver and the platform? In the case of customer evasion, can the driver ask the platform to pay the evasion fee?
case review
Liu has been engaged in driving-related work because of his long-term driving experience. He heard that chauffeur driving is a good income industry, so he also wanted to try it. In March 2021, Liu downloaded an APP "XX chauffeur terminal" launched by a company for chauffeur drivers to undertake business and customers through his mobile phone, checked the service agreement that automatically popped up, and registered. After successful registration, Liu went to the company as required to participate in training, paid a deposit, registration fee and equipment fee of 700 yuan and pre-deposited an account fee of 200 yuan, and received the clothes issued by the platform.
After Liu became a platform driver, according to the agreement, after the order fee is paid by the customer, the platform only deducts the order commission, and the remaining fees are transferred to Liu’s own account. The platform staff sends the assessment mechanism, reward and punishment mechanism, and minimum workload requirements through group chat, and through WeChat, it is particularly emphasized that the driver cannot collect cash from the passenger.
During the period of engaging in the driving service, Liu received a total of nearly 1,000 orders, but also encountered some troubles. Three passengers evaded the order, and the driving fee of 405.50 yuan was not paid. When Liu contacted the customer to ask for the fee, the customer often used the words "I placed the order on the platform, and if you want to find it, the platform will come to me". Later, Liu was complained about other behaviors that did not meet the platform’s regulations in the process of providing the driving service, resulting in the platform forcibly terminating its service qualification. Liu has not received the three order fees.
Liu sued the court, demanding that the platform pay the fee after deducting 20% commission for the order, and refund the security deposit, registration fee and equipment fee of 700 yuan and the account balance.
Court decision
The Nanjing Drum Tower Court held after trial that according to the platform company’s charging model and management regulations, Liu, as a driver on behalf of the platform, the only channel for him to collect the service fee is the platform company’s transfer payment. If there is a loss due to customer evasion, but the driver is required to recover the cost of evasion or bear the corresponding loss, which will cause a serious imbalance in the rights and obligations of both parties. Now Liu requires the platform company to pay the cost after deducting the agreed commission for three orders, and the court supports it.
Considering the overall performance process of the contract and the reasons for termination, Liu’s request for a refund of the security deposit and account balance is supported, and his claim for a refund of the registration fee and equipment fee is not supported.
After the first instance judgment, the platform company refused to accept it and appealed to the Nanjing Intermediate Court. The Nanjing Intermediate Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
Judge’s statement
At present, with the vigorous development of the network economy, the concept of "Internet +" has penetrated into various traditional industries. The online driving platform involved in the case belongs to the new industry model of "Internet + driving". Under this model, the legal relationship and rights and obligations between the driver, the driver, and the platform company have derived a series of new problems, among which the more common ones are how to bear responsibility in the event of a traffic accident, how to settle insurance claims, and so on. This case is a dispute caused by customer evasion.
In this case, during the conclusion and performance of the contract between the platform company and the driver Liu, Liu did not have the right to choose or negotiate the terms of the contract, the performance method, especially the charging method. After he registered as a driver, the platform company established a job number, issued uniform clothing, and established an assessment and reward and punishment management mechanism. This model goes beyond the traditional cooperation contract and is also different from the traditional labor contract, but the rights and obligations between the two parties have not yet reached the level of an employment contract. Overall, it should be determined that a transportation contract is established between the platform and the customer, while the relationship between the platform and the driver is closer to the entrusted contract.
When a customer evades the order, how can the driver exercise his rights?
The agreement between the platform company and the driver stipulates that the driving service provider and the user agree to pay the provider directly after the vehicle arrives at the destination. The platform is not responsible for disputes or disputes arising during the driving service process, nor is it responsible for the losses suffered by the driving service provider or user during the driving service process.
In this regard, we believe that transferring the risk of not being able to recover the driving service fee to the driving driver violates the principle of fairness of consistent rights and obligations, as well as the principle of operation control and operation benefit attribution. In fact, according to the provisions of the Civil Code, if the trustee completes the entrusted affairs, the principal shall pay him as agreed. The platform company refuses to pay the driving fee on the grounds of agreement, which is unfounded in law and will not be supported.
The judge reminded
Platform companies should take advantage of their own network resources to obtain profits, and at the same time, they should assume their own obligations in the new business network employment relationship, establish a more complete management system, supervision obligations and rights protection system, and promote the stable and healthy development of the new business platform economy. At the same time, as a chauffeur driver, they should also be brave and good at using legal weapons to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests, which will also play a positive role in further standardizing the operation and management of online platform economic entities.
Source: Jiangsu High Court, Nanjing Drum Tower Court Continue to swipe to see the next light touch to read the original text
Weifang Changyi Court Swipe up to see the next one
Original title: "What should I do about the order fee for the driver after the customer evades the order?"
Read the original text