A class teacher in Henan, because he wanted to buy a house, so he borrowed 100,000 yuan from the child's parent, Ms. Hu, and She immediately said that she didn't have that much money, and the class teacher said: "Don't you have Huabei Alipay?" You can use the money in there." Ms. Hu was worried that if she did not borrow, the class teacher would be bad for her children, so when the class teacher took her mobile phone, she did not stop it. As a result, the class teacher lent 40,000 yuan in the name of Ms. Hu on the small loan platform in the name of Ms. Hu and transferred it to her account, and promised Ms. Hu that she would repay the money as soon as possible.
However, more than half a year has passed, but the class teacher has not been able to repay the money, and Ms. Hu has no choice but to expose her rights through online media. (News source: Xiaoli help)
A large part of the reason why Ms. Hu lends money to the class teacher is because the class teacher is the child's class teacher, and Ms. Hu is worried that not borrowing money will have a bad impact on the child, so is the loan contract established for this reason a valid contract?
According to the relevant provisions of the Civil Code, contracts concluded by means of coercion, fraud, or taking advantage of the other party's distress are invalid. In real life, the phenomenon of teachers borrowing money from the parents of students is not an isolated case, many parents in order to avoid not borrowing money to make the teacher have a bad impact on the child, generally have no choice but to lend, but in such cases, the identity of the other teacher can not meet the legal requirements for coercion, so the loan contract concluded by the two parties is a legal and valid contract. However, due to the fact that the two parties have not agreed on a specific repayment period, Ms. Hu can claim repayment at any time, and if the class teacher refuses to return it, Ms. Hu can also file a lawsuit with the court.
In addition, there is another key point worth noting in this case, that is, whether the interest generated by Ms. Hu's loan through the small loan platform can be returned by the class teacher. From the perspective of the principle of contractual relativity, when the class teacher and Ms. Hu entered into a loan contract, the two parties did not agree on the interest on the loan, and according to the provisions of the Civil Code, if the interest was not agreed upon when signing the private lending contract, it was deemed that there was no agreed interest. Therefore, although Ms. Hu incurred interest on the loan, she did not have the right to claim repayment from the class teacher.
However, when Ms. Hu claims to return the interest generated after the class teacher refuses to return, Ms. Hu has the right to require the class teacher to pay according to the bank's LPR interest rate for the same period.
In the end, under the exposure of the media, the class teacher also promised to repay the loan the next day, but such cases also exposed a bad social phenomenon, that is, the invisible inequality between the parents and teachers of some students, and the teachers in this case also used this state to achieve their own goals, which is the failure of school management and the responsibility of society.
Teachers, preachers and solvers, as teachers, not only need to "teach", but more importantly, "educate people", how can a teacher whose own moral character is not passed be able to teach excellent students? As parents, we should correctly look at the relationship with teachers, we respect teachers, but for some unreasonable requirements of teachers, we should also resolutely refuse. #Henan##Teacher##Qian##花呗 #
