为什么用法定货币买矿机可退钱 用USDT就会败诉？

Introduction: The year of 2008 is a bull market in the currency circle, and it is also a year when a large number of white people rushed into the currency circle to buy mining machines. According to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law, the statute of limitations for civil cases is to look back on the year. It has been more than two years since then. The case I shared with you today is a dispute over a mining machine sales contract that was newly released in January. In this case, the investor won the case in the first instance, but the buyer won the case in the second instance, but the miner's seller won the case. If you are an investor, lawyer Mo panic Guo will analyze how the buyer won the case at The above picture shows the final judgment result of the first case of Shenzhen mining represented by lawyer Guo. Since the first case of Shenzhen mining refers to the announcement of rectifying virtual currency mining activities on January, 2000, the judgment of the first case of virtual currency mining in Shenzhen has basically laid the judgment trend of virtual currency mining contract disputes in Shenzhen. After that, although there is also a draft for comments on the minutes of the national court financial trial work conference issued by the Supreme Court in January, 2000, it is as follows. According to the further provisions of the minutes of financial trial, that is, according to the time node of the notice on rectifying virtual currency mining activities, the validity of the contract is judged, and the fault liability is also considered. Article 1 of the minutes of the meeting, the original text of the dispute related to mining, virtual currency mining refers to the process of calculating and producing virtual currency through a special mining machine. From the trial of the case, the disputes caused by mining can be summarized into two types. One is that the parties buy, lease and produce virtual currency through mining activities. There is a dispute over the payment of the price of the currency mining machine. One kind of cooperation mode is a combination of multiple legal relationships such as mining machine trading, cooperation, sharing or custody service. For example, the two parties jointly invested to buy the mining machine and agreed to share it after obtaining the virtual currency. After the seller failed to deliver the goods or did not share it, the mining activity was gradually strictly controlled and orderly retired because of its large energy consumption and carbon emissions, low contribution to the national economy and limited scientific and technological progress. In handling cases, the people's courts should reasonably balance the rights and obligations between the parties according to the influence of public policies on the performance of the contract in different periods. Before the notice on rectifying virtual currency mining activities was issued on, the state policy did not explicitly prohibit mining activities. People's courts that had previously agreed to buy, sell, lease and keep mining machines or provide additional services such as operation and management technology development did not pay for it because the subject matter or purpose of the contract was illegal. If the contract cannot be performed later due to the introduction of policies, one party proposes to terminate the contract, and the people's court shall support the termination of performance that has not been performed after the termination of the contract. According to the performance and the nature of the contract, the parties may request restitution or take other remedial measures, and have the right to claim compensation for losses. The people's court shall consider the contract invalid when the parties agree to buy, sell, lease and keep mining machines or provide additional services such as operation and management technology development after. If one party files a lawsuit to confirm the validity of the contract and requests to continue to perform the contract, the other party claims that the contract is invalid or one party files a lawsuit to confirm the invalidity of the contract and return the property, and the other party claims that the contract is valid, the people's court shall explain to the plaintiff to change or increase the litigation request or explain to the defendant to perform the defense at the same time, and try to solve the dispute once and for all. The people's court that changes the litigation request or raises the defense according to the explanation shall organize the parties to fully. Proof and cross-examination, however, just when lawyer Guo thought that such judgments in the whole country would tend to be consistent, a second-instance judgment from Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court did not completely refer to the summary of the financial trial of the Supreme Court. Of course, there is no inevitable mistake. After all, the summary of the current financial trial is still in the stage of soliciting opinions and has not yet fully taken effect, but it can also be seen that the judgment in Shenzhen still has its own tonality. Of course, this case looks at Guo Law from the perspective of the defendant miner represented by lawyer Guo. The division still won the case, but even if Mr. Guo is the winning party, he still thinks that the legal basis of some judgments remains to be discussed. Let's take a look at the specific situation first. A basic case, the plaintiff signed a server hosting agreement with the defendant's mining company, stipulating that the defendant provided the server hosting service for the plaintiff at a consideration of RMB 10,000. After the contract was signed, the plaintiff immediately paid RMB 10,000 to the defendant, and both parties agreed that the defendant only delivered the computing power afterwards, and the computing power was only. After more than a month's maintenance, all deliveries were stopped. The plaintiff sued the miner to the People's Court of Luohu District, Shenzhen, asking the miner to refund the purchase price of 10,000 yuan. The Luohu Court ruled in the first instance that the plaintiff won the case and the defendant should return RMB 10,000 yuan. Then Lawyer Guo appealed on behalf of the defendant, and the defendant won the case in the second instance. The plaintiff, who considered RMB convertible, and the defendant, represented by Mr. Guo, thought it was not convertible. At the time of the first trial of this case, there was no domestic law stipulating that virtual currency could not be converted into RMB, although there was a notice on preventing the financing risk of token issuance and a notice on further preventing and handling the speculation risk of virtual currency trading, the notice stipulated that any platform should not engage in the exchange business between legal tender and token virtual currency, and should not buy or sell it. As a central counterparty, it is not allowed to provide pricing information intermediary services for tokens or virtual currency, but it does not directly stipulate that virtual currency has no value, and these two documents are not legal provisions, but only policy documents. At the same time, the miner confirmed in the chat record that one is equivalent to 10,000 yuan, that is to say, the anchoring standard for the price of virtual currency has also been established, so the court of first instance will decide that the defendant will refund the plaintiff 10,000 yuan. However, in the second instance of this case, the court of second instance, after repeated communication with lawyer Guo, thought that the court of first instance decided that the defendant should return RMB 10,000 to the plaintiff, which in essence supported the redemption and transaction between virtual currency and legal tender in disguise, and supported lawyer Guo's point of view. Why is there such a big difference between the first instance and the second instance? In fact, there was an episode in which the Supreme Court issued the No.1 guiding case, Gao Zheyu and Li Bin, an enterprise of Shenzhen Yunsi Road Innovation and Development Fund, applied for cancellation of the arbitration award, which happened to be a case handled by the Shenzhen Intermediate People's 比特币今日价格行情网_okx交易所app_永续合约_比特币怎么买卖交易_虚拟币交易所平台

注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群

文章转载注明 网址：https://netpsp.com/?id=63334