At the beginning of the year, pet dog deaths were caused by dog training, and the online Red Pan Hon, who had once emptied social accounts in a dispute, was once again involved in pet dog deaths. On 11 August, Zhang Li (alias) of Hunan Liyang told cover journalists that her Alaskan dog, “took” uncontrollably to biters and, after asking for help from Pan Hong's “uncle” base, handed the dog over to Pan Hong's designated consignment company for shipment to the base, where the dog had suddenly died. There was disagreement between the two sides over the timing and cause of death, and she claimed that “the Internet post was followed by a cyberstorm. It's not the same.
Journalists contacted the shipping company and Pan Hong side, which refused the interview, which indicated that the dog had died in a cooperative shipping company and that the incident had nothing to do with the base.
Zhang Li explained that in March of this year, her Alaskan dog “tutus” had lost control of the bites, and that she had sought help from Pan Hong's “uncle”. Upon enquiry, the other party indicated that the dog could no longer be raised and advised to leave it to him. The other party then introduced a shipment company in White City, which had been assigned responsibility for the shipment.
The shipping company informed Zhang Li that only dogs had been taken from the owner and that the transfer agreement was to be signed. Zhang Li said she wanted to go back to the dog after training and said, “I can see the dog at any time if I give it to my uncle”. Zhang Li didn't send the dog out.
In late July, the “twilight” went out of control again, biting people's dogs. While Zhang Li accompanied the other owner to the pet hospital for treatment, she was emotionally moved by the “graphs” and again contacted the uncle and the shipping company. The shipping company indicated that it would need to sign a contract to relinquish ownership of the dog, that it would pay $200, and that the owner of the dog would bear the cost of the shipment of $1050 (from $200).
“The uncle said that the chart was clean and not necessarily sent to the base, and he trained his son to adopt for life. I do not want to sell dogs, but the shipping company insisted on a contract of assignment before they would take over and keep pushing me to sign the Assignment Agreement.” Zhang Li stated that because of her busy work, she had only entered her name on the contract file and sent it back to the other party without downloading the contract for handwritten signature. The other party stated that such a contract would not work, but that the dog could be sent out first, and Zhang Li had to print the contract and sign it back as soon as possible.
According to journalists, the Transfer Agreement is simple: dog owners voluntarily transfer legally owned pets to B, which is responsible for the proper care of the pets, the provision of an appropriate living environment, the cost of day-to-day raising, medical care and the transfer of $200.
On 27 July, Zhang Li paid the freight fee of $1050 (net of $200) and sent the dog out.
“On 30 July, the shipping company kept pushing me to sign the contract, stating that the dog had already arrived in his shop and that he would not be able to enter the park without the contract, and that he would only have had one more day. I was busy that day and promised to print the contract the next day." According to Zhang Li, on 31 July, at more than 9 a.m., the shipping company sent a chatshot of the first evening's chat with other people, in which the video showed that the “chart” was alive.
“Twenty minutes later, the shipping company phoned me and said the dog was dead.” Zhang Li questioned the cause of death of the dog and wanted to see the live surveillance, which was said to be non-existent. Zhang Li suspected that the temperature was too high to cause the dog to die, while the other said that the local temperature was just over 20 degrees, that there was no need to turn on the air conditioner and that it was not known why the dog died.
Zhang Li explained that the shipping company had found a local pet hospital, examined the maps and filmed them to Zhang Li, and that the diagnosis was the death of the disease.
Zhang Li sent the video to the local pet hospital for consultation, while the pet doctor suspected that the fever caused death. Subsequently, differences and disputes arose between the parties over the cause of death of the dog, the time of death and the place of death.
The journalist noted that Zhang Li had said on 31 July: “It makes no sense to have the dog die after you for tens of thousands of dollars. I've spent more than 30,000 on it, and if it is your responsibility to ship it, you'll pay me for my freight and $3,000 for the dog. I don't need you to pay for everything else. It was my decision that a series of problems led to its death.”
In a subsequent dispute, the shipping company stated, “I will speak to Pan Hong, because I am also a worker and I have to listen to the boss, “I have finished talking to Pan Hong, let me return the freight to you and apologize to you”. And Zhang Li replied, "Only the freight charges, I'll figure it out. Can I live?"
Zhang Li claimed that she had not responded to her information after the dispute, and that she had judged Pan Hong to be the boss of the other party, and that she had sent an address about the story and called Ban Hong to solve the problem.
“Pan Hong stated in his account that the dog had a tumor and was not hot to die, saying that I claimed $30,000. After that, a large number of netizens came to my account area to comment on me and called me in private. There's a lot of obnoxious language, and I'm gonna die." Zhang Li said that Pan Hong had communicated with her in private, accusing her of deliberately placing the matter on Pan Hong, which was a traffic transaction; her post had caused Pan Hong to get a public apology and asked her to issue a video clarification, but asked Pan Hong to synchronize the clarification of the “claim for $30,000” and Pan Hong avoided the subject.
In his private letter, Pan Hon stated that the death of the dog was between Zhang Li and the shipping company, and that whoever had a problem with the shipment company at the base, he had to take it away from the dog, and that he had not died, and should not have been held hostage and raped by the Internet.
Zhang Li replied that she had been talking about the responsibility of the shipping company and that her previous reply had made her think that Pan Hong was the owner of the company and that she had sent the post without returning her message; that she had deleted it after being informed that Pan Hong was not the boss; and that she had never requested $30,000.
Pan Hong replied, “Don't worry about $30,000”, “When did he say that his boss was me and had nothing to do with this” “even if we were partners, the dog was not in my house, and you can't mention me”, “We don't have to explain to each other, let the court explain”.
Who's supposed to take the blame for that?
Lawyers: Dog owners can be held accountable to shipping companies
On 4 August, Zhang Li received a letter from a lawyer claiming to have been commissioned by a pet service company in White City, paid for one and Pan Hong. Counsel states that the buyer bears the risk of damage and loss upon delivery by the seller of the object to the designated location of the buyer and to the carrier, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code. As a result, the risk of death and death of the dog has been transferred to the pet service company referred to above and has nothing to do with Zhang Li. It is hoped that Zhang Li will stop the violations and apologize, or be held accountable.
The event created automatic search words on social platforms. Some netizens believed that Zhang Li had accepted the freight credit of $200, i.e. agreed to the terms of the assignment agreement and no longer had the right to pursue liability; others argued that Zhang Li had not formally signed the contract of assignment and had the right to pursue liability. There are also netizens who believe that Zhang Li continues to take the dog to Pan Hong base and should take responsibility for it.
In the afternoon of 11 August, journalists contacted the shipping company and Pan Hong side. The shipping company personnel indicated that the incident had been referred to the courts for follow-up and that it would be difficult to speak in the media. Pan Hong's number shows an empty number, while “Uncle” indicates that the shipment company in question is only a partner of Pan Hong's base, which was confiscated from the dog and did not participate in the incident, which was unrelated to the base.
In response to this incident, Zheng Jianxi, a lawyer at Yingko (Wuhan) law firm in Beijing, considered that the contract of assignment between Zhang Li and the shipping company had not actually been established.
According to Zheng Hak, from the point of view of the purpose of the contract, Zhang Li ' s real intention was not to sell the dog, and the chat record indicated that he wanted to return the dog, paid his own money for the multiple costs of sending the dog, paid $200 less than the cost of the transfer, and was actually confiscated to indicate that his intention was not to sell the dog and that his will was not in keeping with the purpose of the contract; in terms of the form of the contract, the parties ' contracts could be oral or written, but since a written contract had been made, the parties should have based themselves on a signed written contract, and the oral will would not be given, which had not actually been established.
“In this context, the shipping company was responsible for the shipment but has not yet been handed over to the dog training base, which was unrelated to the incident. It should be the owner of the dog who takes charge of the consignment.” JUNG stated that specific situations of advocacy also needed to be resolved by the dog owner through legal means.
Source: Cover News