论文部分内容阅读
2007年5月14日,成都市武侯区人民法院对一起委托讨债公司追讨欠款纠纷案作出一审判决,依法驳回了原告肖老板的诉讼请求。59岁的肖老板因承包一家酒楼的装修工程完工后,对方长期拖欠10.3万元工程款,于是委托讨债公司为其追讨欠款,岂料讨债公司采取“非常手段”追讨到这笔欠款后就神秘消失了,焦急的肖老板只得将原先欠款的酒楼告上法庭。法院经审理后认为,讨债公司是肖老板的委托代理人,酒楼已将欠款支付给讨债公司,应视为已经向肖老板履行完偿还债务的义务,双方的债权债务关系已经消灭。诚信的缺失和法制的困曷,令肖老板无奈地选择了讨债公司作为追回欠
On May 14, 2007, the Wuhou District People’s Court of Chengdu conducted a first-instance verdict on a dispute over entrusting a debt-collection company to recover arrears, and dismissed the claim of the plaintiff, Xiao Boss, according to law. After the completion of the 59-year-old Shaw contractor to renovate a restaurant, the other party owed a project loan of 103,000 yuan in arrears for a long time. Therefore, the debt collection company owed the debt collection company to recover the arrears. Unexpectedly, the debt collection company resorted to “extraordinary means” for recovery Mysterious disappeared after the arrearage of the pen, anxious Shaw owner had only to arrears of the restaurant before court. After hearing the court, the court held that the debt collection agency was the agent entrusted by Xiao Shao and that the restaurant had paid the debts to the debt collection agency and should be regarded as having fulfilled the obligation to pay off the debt to Xiao and the debt and debt relationship between both parties had been eliminated. The lack of integrity and the dilemma of the rule of law, Xiao boss reluctantly chose a debt collection company as a debt owed