Judicial Determination Of Unilateral Livestreaming Rewarding Behavior Of Husband And Wife

Since 2016,the livestreaming industry has developed rapidly,and now livestreaming rewarding has become an important part of the livestreaming economy.However,due to the lack of corresponding legal regulation,livestreaming rewarding is chaotic.In judicial practice,cases where one spouse uses common property to livestreaming bounty are most common and are more controversial between the parties.The court has no unified view on the characterization of livestreaming rewarding behavior and legal relationship,and there is no clear standard for the determination of the defective effect of rewarding behavior.The case of "Yu v.Cheng and other disputes of unjust enrichment" is a typical single-party network livestreaming rewarding case.As the spouse of the rewarding recipient Chai,Yu claims Chai’s behavior is against public order and morality and for the reason of disposition,claiming the platform and the anchor to return the rewarding money.The three parties are in dispute over the nature of the rewarding behavior and whether the rewarding money should be returned,and the courts of first and second instance also hold different views.Livestreaming rewarding includes recharge and rewarding.Regarding the nature of the livestreaming rewarding behavior of Chai,the other party is the livestreaming platform when the user recharges because the rewarding and recharge behavior has a close correlation,the evaluation of the recharge should be combined with a series of services provided by the platform.Therefore,in this case Chai and Momo Technology Company established a network service contract.The anchor as an independent legal relationship subject,provides users with livestreaming performance services and the user rewards for paying payment.The user and the anchor reach a consumer agreement,Chai and anchor Cheng also set up a network service contract.To discuss whether the actual livestreaming rewarding money should be returned,first of all,from the purpose and motivation of the contract,Chai rewards for maintaining intimate relations with the anchor,but they do not exist in the reality of extramarital relations,which can not prove the purpose or motivation of Chai’s livestreaming rewarding contrary to public order and morality.The anchor does not know his marital status,so the rewarding contract is not invalid because it is not contrary to public order and morality.Secondly,whether the disposal of common property beyond the family’s daily needs to be combined with the specific case to determine,the case of Chai’s livestreaming rewarding beyond the family’s daily needs,constituting a rightless disposal.But the anchor is a bona fide third party,Chai’s recharge rewarding behavior is not invalid because of the unilateral disposal of the common property of the couple.By summarizing and analyzing the unilateral livestreaming rewarding cases,it is recommended to unify the determination of the nature and legal relationship of livestreaming online rewarding,clarify the review standard of the validity of the rewarding,reasonably determine the possible liability when the rewarding is invalid,and strengthen the protection of the property rights and interests of the spouse who is not at fault.