← 返回首页 ← Back to Home

⚖️ 案例点评 ⚖️ Case Studies & Analysis

劳动争议Labor Dispute
案例1：公司单方调岗降薪？律师：未经员工同意调岗违法！
Case 1: Company Unilaterally Transfers & Cuts Pay? Attorney: Illegal Without Employee Consent!

当事人张某在一家制造企业担任焊工，月薪6000元。某天公司HR微信通知他调岗到打磨岗，月薪降至4900元，并威胁如果不到新岗位就按2200元计算工资。张某不同意，公司便以旷工为由解除劳动合同。

Mr. Zhang, a welder at a manufacturing company with a monthly salary of 6,000 CNY, was notified by HR via WeChat of a transfer to a grinding position with salary reduced to 4,900 CNY, and threatened to calculate pay at 2,200 CNY if he refused. When Mr. Zhang disagreed, the company terminated his contract citing absenteeism.

裁决结果：Ruling: 公司被认定为违法解除劳动合同，需支付赔偿金。Company found to have illegally terminated labor contract and must pay compensation.
张顺锋点评：Attorney Zhang's Analysis: 公司调岗需经过员工同意。单方改变劳动合同属于违约，如果员工无明显过错，可先要求用人单位按原合同履行，如果没结果，可以提起仲裁主张违法解除双倍赔偿金。Company transfer requires employee consent. Unilateral changes to labor contract constitute breach. If the employee has no obvious fault, they may first demand the employer perform the original contract. If unsuccessful, they may file for arbitration claiming double compensation for illegal termination.
合同纠纷Contract Dispute
案例2："1元购车"案——法院判决值得商榷
Case 2: "1-Yuan Car" Case — Court Ruling Questionable

消费者在某电商平台发现标价1元的汽车，下单支付后商家以"测试链接"为由拒绝发货。法院最终驳回消费者全部诉讼请求。

A consumer found a car listed at 1 yuan on an e-commerce platform, placed the order and paid, but the merchant refused to ship claiming it was a "test listing." The court ultimately dismissed all consumer claims.

张顺锋点评：Attorney Zhang's Analysis: "一元售车"符合有效要约要件，合同成立并生效。商家不履行即构成违约，应当承担违约责任。从法律角度看，法院判决值得商榷。A "1-yuan car sale" meets the requirements of a valid offer — the contract is formed and effective. Merchant non-performance constitutes breach of contract and should bear liability. Legally speaking, the court ruling is questionable.
工伤纠纷Work Injury
案例3：工伤待遇纠纷——劳动关系认定成拦路虎
Case 3: Work Injury Compensation — Labor Relationship Recognition as the Obstacle

当事人T经包工头介绍到D公司工地做电焊工，未签劳动合同，未买工伤保险。工作中受伤后，为认定工伤走了漫长的诉讼之路：先打劳动关系确认诉讼，败诉；再打行政诉讼，历时3年终于认定工伤，10级伤残，赔偿8.3万余元。

Mr. T was introduced by a subcontractor to work as an electrician at D Company's construction site without a labor contract or work injury insurance. After being injured at work, he embarked on a lengthy legal journey: first filed a labor relationship confirmation lawsuit (lost), then an administrative lawsuit. After 3 years, work injury was finally recognized, resulting in 83,000+ CNY compensation for Grade 10 disability.

裁决结果：Ruling: 仲裁支持一次性伤残补助金、医疗补助金、就业补助金等共计8.3万余元。Arbitration supported one-time disability subsidy, medical subsidy, employment subsidy totaling 83,000+ CNY.
张顺锋点评：Attorney Zhang's Analysis: 工伤案件中，如果没有劳动关系证明但有其他工伤证据，可以不用走确认劳动关系诉讼程序。可直接要求人社局出具不予认定决定书，提起行政诉讼，能省去很多弯路。In work injury cases, if there is no labor relationship proof but other work injury evidence exists, the labor relationship confirmation lawsuit can be bypassed. One can directly request the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau to issue a refusal decision and file an administrative lawsuit, saving significant time and effort.
抵押纠纷Mortgage Dispute
案例4：车贷逾期被拖车？律师：贷款人无权自行拖车！
Case 4: Car Repo'd Over Missed Payment? Attorney: Lender Has No Right to Self-Help Repossession!

当事人因车贷逾期，金融公司半夜报警来拖车。当事人咨询：这种拖车行为是否合法？

The client had missed car loan payments, and the finance company called the police in the middle of the night to repossess the car. Client asked: Is this repossession legal?

张顺锋点评：Attorney Zhang's Analysis: 逾期还款属于借款合同违约，贷款人应起诉由法院依法处分抵押物。如果贷款人直接拖车，涉嫌侵害他人财产权利，可能构成盗窃罪。贷款人的拖车行为违法。Missing payments constitutes breach of the loan contract. The lender should sue and have the court legally dispose of the collateral. If the lender directly repossesses the car, it may constitute property infringement or even theft. The lender's repossession is illegal.
婚姻家庭Family Law
案例5：离婚纠纷中小产权房分割争议——二审驳回起诉被再审撤销
Case 5: Divorce & Property Division — Second Instance Dismissal Overturned on Retrial

女方起诉离婚并要求分割夫妻共同财产——深圳市小产权房一栋（共七层27间房）。该房产2002年以"历史遗留违法私房"申报，无正式产权证。

The wife filed for divorce and sought division of jointly-owned property — a small-property house in Shenzhen (7 floors, 27 rooms). The property was declared as "historically problematic private housing" in 2002 without formal property rights certificate.

裁决结果：Ruling: 一审判决准予离婚，小产权房分层分割；二审撤销一审，驳回起诉；广东高院再审撤销二审，指令深圳中院再审。First instance: granted divorce, property to be divided floor by floor; second instance: overturned first instance, dismissed case; Guangdong High Court retrial: overturned second instance, ordered Shenzhen Intermediate Court to retry.
张顺锋点评：Attorney Zhang's Analysis: 二审法院以"超越职权"为由驳回起诉，属于适用法律错误。The second instance court's dismissal citing "ultra vires" constitutes an error in legal application.