Ask a professional who understands the law to give you an answer

First of all, congratulations, you have been granted the right to ask for double pay per month; If the employee proposes to terminate the labor contract, he or she shall notify the employer one month in advance, and if the employer proposes to terminate the labor contract on the basis of the employee's breach of contract, the employee shall give one month's notice or pay one month's salary before terminating the contract.

If you have not signed a contract for one year, you are deemed to have signed an indefinite contract, as long as you don't want to leave, as long as the company has not gone bankrupt, you can continue to work for a long time.

The Labor Contract Law stipulates.

Article 82 Where an employer fails to conclude a written labor contract with a worker for more than one month but less than one year from the date of employment, it shall pay the worker twice the monthly wage.

How long have you been doing it now? If you have not signed an employment contract for more than one year, it is presumed that there is an indefinite employment contract between you, and you must notify the employer in writing one month in advance of your resignation.

If there is a de facto employment relationship (non-contractual relationship) between you for less than one year, you can terminate the employment relationship at any time.

You can leave at any time. According to Article 38 of the Labor Contract Law, an employee may terminate a labor contract if the employer has any of the following circumstances: (3) failing to pay social insurance premiums for the employee in accordance with the law.

You'll be able to go whenever you want.

Now you buy a house with your own money, counting it as your own personal property.

Because you are divorced, there is no longer a marriage relationship in law, your property is independent, although you are now living together, but it is not a legally recognized marriage relationship, so the law protects your private property, and the house you bought after the divorce is your private property.

The law also stipulates that the property that belongs to you before marriage is not included in the scope of joint property after marriage, unless you have a prenuptial property agreement, and the agreement has an agreement that your respective property before marriage will be included in the scope of common property after marriage, and the prenuptial property agreement between husband and wife is included in the scope of joint property.

Property acquired during the period of cohabitation does not necessarily belong to personal property, and it is better to write an agreement to clarify the property and debt issues so as to avoid future disputes.

You buy a house now, of course, it's your own. There will never be your ex-husband's share.

Since you are divorced, the property you purchased is your personal property after the divorce, and you only need to write your personal name on the title deed. There will be no question of dividing property. Even if you later remarry, it will also be your personal property.

First of all, you have to consider the issue of the statute of limitations in this case, the statute of limitations for civil litigation cases is 2 years, calculated from the date you know that your rights and interests have been violated, and you have 10 years to see that you have stated yourself, you must come up with a game that you have recovered and defended in the last 2 years, and it meets the situation that the statute of limitations has been suspended, before you can sue.

As for the validity of the proof you said, what you said is too simple, if the content is as you stated, it is an unclear contract, there is ambiguity, that is to say, the downstairs allocation room is arbitrarily selected, he can say that the allocation of the house is arbitrary, but there is no agreement that the allocation of the house does not need to pay for the house, that is to say, he only admits the fact of the sale of the commercial house, at that time only collected the price of the commercial house, and did not collect the price of the house, agree that you choose the house at will, but you did not pick and did not pay the price of the house, So he didn't approve of it.

In short, the most important thing is to see if you have supporting evidence to support it, and the winning rate is not guaranteed.

Consult a lawyer.

This is absolutely the full responsibility of the operator, that is, KTV, because as an entertainment venue operating unit, it must ensure that the operation of the equipment and facilities used for the operation of the venue meets the safety standards, calculate and eliminate the hidden dangers that may cause property damage and endanger the safety of life, and the KTV you went to obviously did not check the safety of the equipment according to the requirements, resulting in the accident of electrocution and injury to the guests. As for their argument that the electrocution was caused by the bare feet of the guests, it is simply a big joke in the world Is it mandatory for every island KTV guest to wear shoes and keep them insulated?

This is the unquestionable responsibility of the operator, if the other party tries to use the relationship and other means to shirk responsibility, then find a lawyer to sue, they lose 100%!

That's it, I wish you all the best in solving the problem!

The responsibility for this accident lies entirely with the song hall, and the operator of a consumer place like KTV must protect the personal safety of consumers, and it is by no means a reason to be electrocuted barefoot. Your sister is a victim and can claim compensation from the song hall in accordance with the law. legal provisions;

The person obligated to compensate the victim for personal injury, all expenses incurred due to medical treatment** and the loss of income due to lost work, including medical expenses, lost work expenses, nursing expenses, transportation expenses, accommodation expenses, hospital meal subsidies, and necessary nutrition expenses.

The operator has certain potential safety hazards, and retains evidence to demand certain compensation.