Uncle Ma from Hulunbuir, Inner Mongolia, worked hard to save 80,000 yuan for his son's marriage. In the process of depositing, something ridiculous happened. When the bank counted the cash, it found that it was missing 4,600 yuan, and Uncle Ma insisted that he had saved 80,000 yuan. This case finally went to court, how will the court decide? Let's get up and look at this drama-filled story.
After many counts by the bank staff and confirmation by the money detector, Uncle Ma got a deposit certificate indicating that the deposit amount was 80,000 yuan. When the bank conducted a cash count on the same day, it was found that 4,600 yuan was missing from the account. After monitoring and playback, the bank found that Uncle Ma's actual deposit was only 75,400 yuan, which was caused by the staff's operational error. The bank contacted Uncle Ma in the hope that he could make up the difference of 4,600 yuan, but Uncle Ma insisted that his deposit was 80,000 yuan and refused to make up the difference. As a result, the bank took Uncle Ma to court and demanded that he make up 4,600 yuan for unjust enrichment.
This case seems simple, but in fact it is complicated. In terms of Uncle Ma, he felt that he had been tricked by the bank, and he had saved 80,000 yuan, why did it suddenly become 75,400 yuan? The bank insisted that it did count the deposit correctly, but it may have been wrong in the subsequent processing. According to the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, once a contract is concluded, both parties shall perform their contractual obligations. In this case, Uncle Ma has fulfilled the obligation to make deposits, and the bank should also fulfill the responsibility of keeping the deposits. If the bank discovers an error in the amount after the fact, it should check its own workflow instead of asking the customer to make up the difference.
If the bank can provide conclusive evidence to prove that Uncle Ma did give 4,600 yuan less when depositing, then Lao Zhang may need to bear the corresponding responsibility. But this requires banks to provide sufficient evidence, not just words. According to article 67 of the Civil Procedure Law, the parties are required to provide evidence for their claims. The bank provided surveillance** as evidence showing that the actual deposit was $75,400. Although Uncle Ma insisted that he had saved 80,000 yuan, he failed to provide strong evidence. At the same time, Article 987 of the Civil Code stipulates that if the gainer knows or should know that the benefits obtained have no legal basis, the injured party has the right to demand the return and compensation for the loss. Uncle Ma's deposit slip shows 80,000 yuan, but the actual deposit is 75,400 yuan, so he benefited 4,600 yuan, and the bank has the right to demand a return.
The court ruled that after the trial, Uncle Ma should return the 4,600 yuan of unjust enrichment. Uncle Ma was dissatisfied and appealed, but the trial court upheld the original verdict. This case shows us how a small mistake in making a deposit can lead to legal disputes. Uncle Ma insisted on his point of view, but failed to provide strong evidence. The bank won the lawsuit by virtue of the key evidence of surveillance**. This case reminds us that when making large transactions, it is important to check carefully to ensure that all information is accurate to avoid unnecessary trouble. What do you think about such a verdict?