论文部分内容阅读
一、从李杏英案看思维差异:在思考法条之前先要思考事实许多年前著名的李杏英诉上海大润发超市存包损害赔偿案中最核心的一个争点是:双方当事人就使用自助寄存柜形成的是保管合同关系,还是借用合同关系。①法院最终认定两点:1.双方当事人就使用自助寄存柜形成的不是保管合同关系,而是借用合同关系;2.李杏英既不能证明其确曾将所称钱款放入自助寄存柜内,也不能证明其所称物品的遗失是自助寄存柜本身存在的质量问题造成的,更不能证明其所称物品的遗失是大润发超市在提供寄存服务中的故意或重大过失行为所造成。因此,李杏英要求大润发超市和被告大润发公司承担其所称物品遗失的赔偿责任,缺乏事实根据和法律依据,难以支持。
First, from Li Xingying case to see the difference in thinking: Before thinking about the law to think about the facts Many years ago, famous Li Xingying v. Shanghai RT-Mart supermarkets package damage compensation case is the core of a dispute: the parties on the use of self-storage cabinets formed Is custody of the contractual relationship, or borrow contractual relationship. (1) The Court finally found two points: 1. The parties did not maintain the contractual relationship by using the self-service lockers but instead borrowed the contractual relationship. 2. Li Xingying neither proved that they did put the amount claimed in the self-storage locker, Nor can it prove that the alleged loss of goods is caused by the quality problems of the self-storage cabinets themselves, nor can it prove that the alleged loss of goods is caused by the intent or gross negligence of RT-Mart in the provision of storage services. Therefore, Li Xingying requires that the RT-Mart supermarkets and the accused RT-Mart bear the liability for the loss of what they claim as goods, lacking in factual basis and legal basis, and are difficult to support.