As early as October 2015, the Shanghai Arbitration Tribunal recognized the legal effect of the electronic contract of our platform, which is the first case of electronic contract in China. Since then, including Hangzhou, Suzhou, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Chongqing, Tianjin and other places of the court and arbitration institutions, has also recognized the legal effect of electronic contracts. Brief examples are as follows:
- In October 2015, the Shanghai Arbitration Tribunal recognized the legal effect of our platform's e-contracts in an arbitration case;
- In July 2016, the Shangcheng District People's Court of Hangzhou ruled on an internet financial transaction case based on the e-contracts of our platform;
- In July 2016, the labor contract signed by our platform was approved by Shanghai's Jiading District Labor and Personnel Dispute Arbitration Commission;
- In October 2016, China Guangzhou Arbitration Commission recognized the legal effect of our platform's e-contract in online arbitration;
- In March 2017, China Guangzhou Arbitration Commission recognized the legal effect of our platform's e-contract in a batch of small loan cases;
- In August 2017, China Guangzhou Arbitration Commission recognized the evidential validity of our platform's e-contracts in a sale and purchase case arbitration;
- In 2018, the evidential validity of our platform's e-contracts was recognized in a number of cases by the judgments of Tianjin District Court and Chongqing District Court.
Here is an example of one of the e-contract cases to help you better understand why e-contracts can be recognized by courts as well as arbitration institutions.
On April 20, 2016, Company A and Travel Agency B entered into a cooperation in which Company A was responsible for recruiting tourists for Travel Agency B's tourism products to be received by Travel Agency B. The company was responsible for the recruitment of tourists for Travel Agency B's tourism products. On the same day, the two parties signed an electronic contract through my platform.
Later, due to the default of travel agency B, a certain confirmed trip was forced to cancel, and company A received a large number of complaints from tourists. company A returned the tourists' money and paid more than 40,000 yuan in compensation for this.
Shortly afterward, Company A filed a lawsuit against Travel Agent B in court.
Company A said that the case involves a contract formed through the electronic signature, the authenticity of the electronic signature of the platform by my big review to confirm.
Subsequently, Company A applied for a document signing authenticity proof report to my platform and submitted the report to the court.
Finally, after the trial, the court issued a judgment on this case on May 14, 2018, finding that the travel e-contract signed on my platform was established and valid according to law.
The court ruled: "The court finds that: the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, such as the contract of commissioned reception of tourists, the report of authenticity proof of the signing of Lada's documents, the product cancellation slip, the complaint confirmation slip, the payment return slip, the contract of commissioned reception and the notary certificate and its statement of opinion in the trial are mutually corroborating, and their authenticity can be confirmed. Accordingly, it can be confirmed that the commissioned reception contract signed between the plaintiff and the defendant is established and valid according to law, and both parties should fulfill their obligations according to the contract." (Excerpted from the civil judgment of Suzhou Industrial Park People's Court)