Previously, Mr. Bu of Beijing had informed Red Star journalists that he and his partner had rented a slot at a site in Beijing to operate out-of-trade businesses through a catstar cook dedicated to “shared kitchens”. However, two days after business, it was felt that it was not time-consuming and that it was not possible to withdraw from time-consuming losses, but that the three-month space cost for inputs, the combined service cost and the $7700 performance bond would not be possible to return.

The contract signed by Mr. B for the management of the operation of the casing constellation service showed that a single-party was released in advance of the contract and that it was not entitled to reimbursement for the payment of the performance bond, for the use of unused premises and for the combined services, and that a commercial contractor should also pay a three-month fee for the use of the casing cook within three days of the termination of the contract, as well as for the non-compliance of the fees paid for the integrated services, and that it was not entitled to claim reimbursement.

In response, the seller of the pox cook indicated that it was not possible to satisfy Mr. Bu’s claim for the return of all costs. The legal officers of the BCS cook indicated that the agreed default was too high and ultimately decided by the judiciary. With regard to the requirement in this article that a contract should be repaid in default, the above-mentioned legal officers indicated that this was part of the increase in the number of contracts adjusted to avoid defaults by vendors during the outbreak. However, from the time of the outbreak, this portion of the default was largely absent from business. She indicated that it would be possible to remove that part of the article in the future.

Tenant reflects:

Not only did the cost of the unused premises not be refunded after the lease was terminated

A further default payment

According to Mr. Bu, on 10 March, Mr. Bu and the partner, together with the Costar cooker, established a rental contract. At the beginning of the contract, Mr. Bu was asked to go to the electronic version of the contract in order to verify the terms more carefully, but it was felt that the contract was problematic.

He asked the seller about the time deposit and rent if there were some sudden developments in the course of doing business? The seller’s response at that time was “no matter, let you get back, then let you turn to you, or you turn to your own lease”.

Mr. B indicated that, following the commitment of the seller, the parties had signed the contract on 11 March. The contract showed that Mr. Bub and the partner paid a one-time payment of $30800 to Cater, consisting of three months of space usage and combined service charges of $3080 per month and $4620 per month, respectively, and a performance bond of $7700.

Under the contract, the cost of the use of the site is the cost incurred by the operator in carrying out the operation of the Operation’s cat constellation cook, and the cost of the integrated service refers to the cost of the catstar cooker, the licensee of the site providing space management, operating services, and matching the front line services for the business.

After the contract, Mr. Bou and the partner spent nearly 20 days in preparation, including cleaning up the “originally dirty” site, isolating him, recruiting an apost and training her.

In April, the shop was opened the following day, and they were able to drop out in order to abandon their business. Mr. B told Red Star journalists that he had been told with the incoming salesman Wehai supra that the company was not allowed to refund money. Mr. Bu then suggested that the deposit “acknowledged” and that it was “ready willing to pay for its own decision-making failures”, but wished to return the rent. However, they did not receive a positive response from the company and were told that they could go directly to prosecute.

“For the absence of sound recordings, we are really passive because we are not written in white paper”. Mr. Bu’s words are not exhaustive.

In addition, the contract also indicates that a single contractor is expected to pre-empt the contract and that a three-month fee for the use of the site and a default payment for the cost of the integrated services shall be paid to the Catstar within three days of the termination of the contract.

Mr. Bu said that at present the catstar cook did not mention him. He stated that only consent to the terms of the contract would allow for the cancellation of the contract procedure and a real retreat, but he was particularly concerned that the return of rent was not settled and that such payments would be repaid.

BCSS response:

Repayment of default payments

However, it is generally not possible to reach out to back-to-back vendors.

Wehai supra, the poundator of the catstar cooker, told infrared journalists that “nobody committed to this”. With regard to the follow-up of the incident, he indicated that “contractually,” and a one-year lease would be paid back. According to the law clerk of BCS, it is not clear what kind of commitment will be given to business owners at the stage when their colleagues in the marketing sector will be given, since they are based on the written documents issued by the company, nor are there any suggestions or commitments made by the company to export their clients.

The IFSC noted that the contract signed by Mr. B stated that, except for the expression of the commitment, the meaning of the contract, which also met the terms “in writing” and “ingae”, the written or oral commitment given by any subject, individual to the business in connection with the contract should be considered null and void.

The contract signed by Mr. B for the operation of the Courtx cooker’s site management service showed that the contractor had made an advance contract and that the payment of the performance bond, the fees paid for unused premises and the combined service charges were not refunded as default.

The Managing Director of Cocastar Lee stated that the mid-trip requirement for the return of the deposit and unused rent was certainly not rebuffed because the contractor had not fully performed the contract.

The law clerk for the catstar cook indicated that the early release of a commercial individual could result in a period of emptying of the site’s slots, and that there was a cost of site renovation and recruitment, so that “the agreed default payment is not necessarily unreasonable”. It stated that the extent to which commercial contracts were not agreed to was unreasonable and unreasonable was a case in which the parties had expressed their agreement.

In the case of the bond as a deposit, the liability for default has been assumed, and the law clerk has indicated that the type of default is available and that the default is not necessarily a performance bond. Whether the agreed default is too high, and ultimately it is up to the judiciary to determine.

With regard to the contract pointing out that a commercial individual was required to pay a three-month off-duty for the use of the premises and the cost of the integrated services, the above-mentioned catstar cooker indicated that, according to the requirements of the company’s business sector, the legal service would not regularly adjust the contract, and that during the three-year outbreak, there was a particularly high number of cases of non-compliance by the small caterer, in order to avoid default by the contractor, the company’s loss was excessive.

“I think this may be the best way to achieve security, and in some sense, a man who wants to know the universe is unlikely to exterminate humanity because we are an interesting part of the universe,” in his interview.

Mask did not respond immediately to media requests for assessment.

Known to the media, Mask has been digging hand-in-hand researchers from the Lower Google flag of Alphabet, thus creating a pioneer company competing with OpenAI.

A State filing document shows that last month the State of Nevada, Mask, registered a company called X.AI Corp. Jared Birchall, Director General of the Maksk Family Office, is the sole member of the company.

Previously, the Mask and manual intelligent experts and industry high-level call for a six-month moratorium on the development of a more powerful system than the newly launched GPT-4 by OpenAI, on the grounds that it has potential risks to society.

Mask also reiterated his warning of manual wisdom when he was interviewed, saying that “manufactured intelligence is more dangerous than poorly managed aircraft design, production maintenance or poor automobile production”.

“It has the potential to undermine civilization”, he said.

Last weekend, he wrote that he had met with the United States President at Obama and told him that Washington needed “to encourage manual smart regulation”.

Mask jointly created OpenAI in 2015, but withdrew from the company’s board in 2018. In 1969, he submitted that he left OpenAI because he had to focus on Tetra and SpaceX.

He also explained in his introductory remarks that he left OpenAI for other reasons, “Tshalla competes with OpenAI and I do not recognize what the OpenAI team wants to do”.

Mask is the Chief Executive Officer of Tesla and SpaceX. Last year, he purchased the social media platform Twitter with $44 billion and served as Chief Executive Officer.

In January this year, Microsoft announced an additional investment of billions of dollars to OpenAI, which increased competition with industry for handicrafts and increased competition to attract artificial smart money in the silicon valley.

On the same day, the three major indexes of US stocks fell collectively. The standard & Poor’s 500 index fell 1.65%, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 1.02% and the Nasdaq composite fell 3.18%.

Technology stocks led the decline, with Tesla down more than 8%, Facebook down more than 4% and Microsoft down more than 3% except apple.

Reporter Cheng Yajing intern editor Yang Xia

On the evening of March 4, Guorui Technology (300600, SZ; the previous closing price was 9.39 yuan) issued an announcement, saying that the court held that some of the lawsuits filed by Guorui technology should be dismissed because the underlying transactions of the case were suspected of economic crimes.

The lawsuit rejected by Guorui technology is about the “private network communication business explosion” detonated by Sui Tianli, in which dozens of listed companies were involved. Guorui technology previously announced that there is a risk of loss to the company due to abnormal execution of some contracts and overdue accounts receivable of 170 million yuan in the multi mesh cloud data processing communication machine business.

Four lawsuits have been filed before

According to the announcement of Guorui technology on the evening of July 15, 2021, on January 19, 2020, the listed company signed three equipment purchase and sales contracts with Fushen Industrial Company (hereinafter referred to as Fushen industry), which agreed that Fushen industry would purchase multi mesh cloud data processing communication machines from Guorui technology, with a total contract price of 130 million yuan. After Guorui technology completed the production and the products met the delivery conditions, Fushen industry only paid the contract deposit of 13.08 million yuan on January 19, 2020 and February 12, 2020 respectively.

On December 5 and December 25, 2020, Fushen industry appointed Harbin comprehensive bonded Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Harbin comprehensive insurance) to inspect and accept different batches of goods of Guorui technology and issued the equipment acceptance handover form with the conclusion that the acceptance is qualified. Upon the urging of Guorui technology, Harbin comprehensive insurance paid a total of 13 million yuan on April 30, 2021 and June 4, 2021, However, the subsequent other party failed to perform its payment obligations in full.

On the same day (January 19, 2020, when three equipment purchase and sales contracts were signed with Fushen industry), another equipment purchase and sales contract with a total price of 49.72 million yuan was signed between the listed company and Fushen industry, and Fushen industry only paid a contract deposit of 4.97 million yuan on February 12, 2020. On December 25, 2020, Fushen industry also designated Harbin comprehensive insurance to accept the goods and issue the acceptance handover form that passed the acceptance. Subsequently, the above-mentioned enterprises did not perform the contract.

On March 9, 2020, Guorui technology signed three purchase and sales contracts with Fushen industry, with a total price of 119 million yuan. Fushen industry paid a deposit of 11.87 million yuan on January 19, 2020 and February 12, 2020, and the subsequent contracts were not fulfilled.

To sum up, Fushen industry has signed seven equipment purchase and sales contracts with Guorui technology, and four of them have designated Harbin comprehensive insurance to accept the goods.

On May 9, 2020, Guorui technology also signed four purchase contracts with Nanjing Changjiang Electronic Information Industry Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Nanjing Changjiang Electronics). Nanjing Changjiang electronics purchased multi mesh cloud data processing communication machines from Guorui technology, with a total contract price of 70.07 million yuan. However, Nanjing Changjiang electronics only paid the contract deposit of 7.01 million yuan on May 14, 2020.

Based on the above situation, Guorui technology filed a total of four lawsuits.

The underlying transaction is suspected of economic crime

Due to the breach of contract of the above three companies, Shanghai Xingditong Communication Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Shanghai Xingditong) signed a compensation agreement with Guorui technology on March 27, 2021, stipulating that Shanghai Xingditong shall bear the responsibility of urging the buyer to pay the goods on time. If the buyer is overdue, Shanghai Xingditong shall compensate the liquidated damages agreed in the plaintiff’s purchase and sales contract, The compensation amount shall not exceed 5% of the total contract amount.

Statistics show that Shanghai Xingditong was established in 2011, and its business scope includes R & D, testing, assembly and production of communication systems and related equipment. Sui Tianli is the actual controller of Shanghai Xingditong.

Both the above-mentioned customers and Shanghai Xingditong highly coincide with the customers in the thunder explosion of private network communication business of many listed companies, such as Zhongtian Technology (rights protection) (600522, SH; previous closing price of 17.82 yuan).

Due to the above risks, in order to reduce losses, Guorui technology filed a lawsuit with Suzhou intermediate people’s court. The cases involved in this civil ruling are: listed company v. Fushen industry, Shanghai Xingditong sales contract dispute [(2021) su05 minchu No. 1428], listed company v. Fushen industry, Harbin comprehensive insurance and Shanghai Xingditong sales contract dispute [(2021) su05 minchu No. 1429].

Guorui technology said it would appeal within the statutory time limit. In addition to the two litigation cases involved in this announcement, two other litigation cases involving listed companies are still in the process of trial.

Shareholder welfare is coming! Send you ten gold stocks! Click View > >

Massive information and accurate interpretation are all in Sina Finance app

Introduction:

On February 22, in the 11th inning of the 23rd Nongxin cup, there was a dispute between China’s mi Yuting and South Korea’s Shen zhenchen. After MI Yuting settled down, the system reported a timeout. As the host, the ROK launched the arbitration commission system, and the Chinese side protested. The arbitration committee of Nongxin cup is composed of two on duty referees, and the international go League appoints one referee. The current rotation of the international go League is in South Korea, so South Korea won by 2 votes. Mi Yuting is in charge of arbitration. The video is a suspected timeout moment.