to find someone to cash reveal passwords,Adidas F50 Deutschland, cheated 9000 yuan

liar did not report pos machine business men holding claims

due to their own fault, obviously, the man lost the first trial

someone claiming to be helping people online with a credit card cash, things are after charging a small commission? Man, Chen believed, the result being a liar sleepwalk credit card and password will be set to go? Chen was found on the other, his credit card has been a technology company to be a liar on a pos machine brush away 9,000? Deceived by the same time there is another person, a liar,Ralph Lauren Polo Madrid, when one person in cash on signing the names of two people, Chen technology company as the bank that the merchants,Franklink Marshall Deutschland, not tried to pay attention to the obligation to verify, then sued the company claims? Recently, Chen was due to their own fault, lost the first trial?

case playback

cheated 9000 yuan cash at

2010 January, Chen met online a users, the person claiming to provide cash services for others, things are received after the commission of one per cent? Month 24, agreed to by Chen Fu-room to find a good new world,

At this point, they come in a couple, Chen later learned that this is the Wang couple of men and women, also come to ? , also by done before then, once I get thirty-six thousand in cash?

so that they feel may be on his way only to find the time, Chen's credit card in the machine, a technology company's pos been brushed away 9,000 yuan, Wang brush away a couple of cards is 24,000 yuan?

trial and Commander

obligation to verify the spotlight

2010 in July, not appearing in court in fraud case involved Chen will be the case all the pos machine people - a technology company in court? Trial, Chen said? Pirates of the brush in such a dense time period, a liar and one bank holding four different bank cards, fraudulent use of the names of two people signed the POS machine to sign requisitions, also signed my name wrong, in this the case, your company's cashier or completed transactions with a liar, you can say no responsibility? in the process of credit card business, process, the cashier will swipe the card immediately after the return shall cardholder, the card should have been held until after the signature verification can be returned to the card? And just when you need to pay attention to check? Accordingly, visible, a technology company in the transaction are not doing their duty to verify attention,Abercrombie Paris Boutique, there is gross negligence, requesting the court take a technology company to work his way thus causing economic losses 9000 yuan and interest?

party's Application for Chen, a technology company argued? plaintiffs themselves, and, the plaintiff suffered losses, the infringer is not my company, but the suspect should not be liable by the company? In addition, the plaintiff had no evidence to prove the signature in the back of the card aside and sign requisitions the signature on the inconsistency, our careful attention to the duty done in the plaintiff's two credit cards are equipped with a password, the holders of the company to enter the correct password, the transaction had to be completed, as a general trading practices, Cardholders should be regarded as legitimate holders of? the plaintiff said,

the fault of the plaintiff was lost

Shahekou District People's Court hearing the case and that the legitimate property of citizens protected by law? Citizens, legal persons and caused property damage to others how wrong, should bear the liability? Chen from the credit card for cash, their credit card to others, and inform the personal information and passwords, causing property damage, and its fault in itself?

other known information and credit card Chen, Chen held technology companies in the defendant's credit card at the signature card to imitate Chen, despite signing the signature illegible requisitions,NHL Jerseys Blog, writing is not standardized, but Chen could not prove the signature in the back of the card with the signature of the reserve consists of the defendant's staff to review the harsh authenticity of the signature of the obligation is no legal basis, there is no fault of the defendant company should bear the liability? Recently, the court verdict, dismissed Chen's claim?

Xinni correspondent Li Yi

• NFL Acheter Blog rU6m - Perennial father daughter
• Abercrombie Paris Boutique sC8j - Real estate comp
• Franklink Marshall Deutschland sO6a - Man dissatis