With the development of social economy, online live streaming has become an important part of the Internet economy. A large number of live broadcast platforms have signed anchors, creating a large number of Internet celebrities, and live broadcast tipping has become an important channel for the online live broadcast industry to make profits, and there are more and more disputes arising from this.
When the husband lends money to reward the female anchor, and the creditor comes to the door to ask for the debt, as a spouse, should he bear the responsibility of repayment?
According to Article 1064 of the Civil Code, debts incurred by both husband and wife as jointly signed or later recognized by one of the husband and wife, as well as debts incurred by one of the husband and wife in his or her own name for the daily needs of the family during the existence of the marital relationship, are joint debts of the husband and wife.
However, debts incurred by one of the spouses in his or her own name during the marriage in excess of the daily needs of the family are not joint debts;However, the creditor can prove that the debt was used for the husband and wife's common life, joint production and business, or based on the common intention of the husband and wife.
Therefore, the debt that the husband borrows to the female anchor to reward is generally not recognized as a joint debt of the husband and wife. The daily large reward to the anchor, can the other half get it back?
Whether a large amount of tips can be returned needs to be judged from the following three aspects:
1. Whether the spouse, as a co-owner of the property, has fulfilled the management duty and duty of care of the family property. For example, if the spouse does not realize the large expenses of his or her partner for a long time, it may help prove that the large amount of tips is not beyond the scope of the family's daily needs.
2. The time of the tip, the amount of each tip, and how long the tip has been continued to be judged. If it is a small, multiple, or long-term live broadcast tip, it is more likely to be recognized as a consumer behavior, because the tipper enjoys the services provided by the live broadcast platform and the anchor. Once it is determined that it is a consumer behavior, the court will basically not support the return.
3. The tipper's tipping channel and the relationship with the anchor. If the relationship between the tipper and the anchor is only between the consumer and the service provider, and is limited to the contact on the Internet, and there is no real-life interaction, then in this case, it will be recognized as a general consumption behavior and will not be refundedIf there is an improper relationship between the tipper and the anchor and the payment is made to the anchor through other channels, then it can be determined that it is a gift, and because of the improper relationship between the two, the court is more inclined to refund it.
At the same time, enhance the awareness of evidence, especially in the case of a business contract such as a service contract that may be established with the platform and the live broadcast publisher, attention should be paid to retaining relevant evidence to avoid possible difficulties in presenting evidence.