Call the cell phone activity expired take no back deposit customer prosecution

The News (Yang Keyuan) heard that there is "phone call CDMA mobile phone" activities, timber company boss Chiang paid 54,000 yuan deposit after 12 mobile phones. When the 3-year contract expires, Mr. Chiang sued the court because the organizers were unwilling to return the deposit.　　A few days ago, Minhang Court decided Shanghai Xiao Audio Communication Technology Co., Ltd. returned to Mr. Chiang deposit 54,000 yuan, and pay interest of 1575 yuan. June 29, 2005, Chiang Kai-shek due to business needs, pay 54,000 yuan, to participate in Xiao Yin Company's organization of the phone call CDMA mobile phone activities, Xiao Yin Company staff Guo issued a receipt. In August 2008, Mr. Chiang used 12 CDMA mobile phones for more than 3 years, and then to Xiao Sound company, China Telecom, Unicom and Guo a claim to refund the deposit, but not fruit.　　Thus, Mr. Chiang sued the court and requested the company to refund the deposit of 54,000 yuan and interest. Xiao-Yin Company and Guo was summoned by a court summons, without justifiable reasons refused to appear. Telecom companies argue that Unicom's CDMA business has been legally owned by the telecommunications company since October 1, 2008, and that prior obligations and responsibilities related to the CDMA business should be the responsibility of the Unicom company. Unicom has argued that the company is only a provider of telecommunications services, and did not participate in the agreement between Mr. Chiang and Xiao-Yin company. Guo MoU argues that he is the agent of the company to collect cheques, the use of the money and composition is not clear.　　The court found that Xiao Yin Company was opened by a couple of Guo, December 2007 has been transferred to others. After the court heard that the telecommunications companies and Unicom company is a telecommunications service provider, not the payee, nor the "phone call to the three-party CDMA mobile phone Agreement" of the Parties, therefore should not be held responsible.　　Mr. Chiang's receipt shows that the party receiving the deposit is Xiao-yin company, and Guo received a deposit when the receipt signed also has Xiao Yin company seal, signature, so the court found that Xiao Yin Company for the payee. The court found that the receipt of 54,000 yuan as a deposit, from common sense, the deposit should be in accordance with certain conditions refund. According to the "Call the CDMA mobile phone tripartite agreement", Xiao Sound Company does not collect the right to deposit, Xiao Yin Company also did not appear in court to prove the basis of the deposit and return the deposit conditions, it should be refunded the deposit. Accordingly, the Court made the above judgement.