Business Case Study Mall Case Study

Lee's view is wrong. The retail store is a sole proprietorship and is the joint property of the husband and wife, and the debts that Li owes to his neighbors are joint debts.

Article 17 The following property acquired by husband and wife during the existence of their marital relationship shall be jointly owned by the husband and wife:

1) Wages and bonuses;

2) the income from production and operation;

3) income from intellectual property rights;

4) Property obtained by inheritance or donation, except as provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 18 of this Law;

5) Other property that shall be jointly owned.

Husbands and wives have equal rights to dispose of jointly owned property.

Article 19: Husband and wife may agree that property acquired during the existence of the marital relationship and property before marriage shall be owned separately or jointly, or partly separately or partly jointly. The agreement shall be in writing. Where there is no agreement or the agreement is unclear, the provisions of articles 17 and 18 of this Law apply.

The agreement between the husband and wife on the property acquired during the marriage and the property before the marriage is binding on both parties.

If the husband and wife agree that the property acquired during the existence of the marital relationship shall belong to each other, and the debts owed by the husband or wife to the outside world are known to the third party, the debts shall be paid off with the property owned by the husband or the wife.

1. The loan owed to Zhang is indeed the debt of the retail store, but the retail store is not a legal person, and all the debts of the retail store are borne by the owner of the retail store. In other words, Mr. and Mrs. Li bear all the debts. (The size of the retail store is not stated in the title, and if the retail store is a legal person, it will bear the debt with all its assets, and only the retail store will be assumed to be an unincorporated person).

2. The money borrowed from a neighbor and the money borrowed from Zhang are both joint debts of the husband and wife, and are to be borne by the joint property of the husband and wife, except where Li's wife has evidence to prove that it is premarital property.

3. Therefore, Li's wife's statement is wrong, and she should bear all debts with the joint property of the husband and wife.

First of all, it depends on whether Li borrows money in the name of an individual or in the name of a store, if it is in the name of an individual, then it is a joint debt of the husband and wife, and it also depends on the nature of the store whether it is a corporate legal person or an individual industrial and commercial household, and the loan in the name of the corporate legal person has nothing to do with the family property, and the legal person bears the liability for compensation; If it is a sole proprietorship, it is a joint debt of the husband and wife. The joint debts of the husband and wife are repaid with the joint property of the husband and wife.

Second, debts owed to neighbours should also be paid out of the joint property of the husband and wife, unless there is an agreement between the husband and wife. Reason: Debts incurred by husband and wife during their common life, and debts owed by law for the treatment of one party's illness are not debts owed jointly by husband and wife.

It should be a sole proprietor, and it is a joint debt of husband and wife. The joint debts of the husband and wife are repaid with the joint property of the husband and wife.

I think this case is more like a test question before the entry of a new employee to check whether the employee has brand values and a few copies of character Sales is to sell character If I am this salesman Since I still remember Mr. Zhang, I know that this item is my own **, you should actively cooperate with the replacement and maintenance, but also abide by the regulations of the mall 1, maintain the interests of the mall, abide by the rules, through the documents of the mall stub, check the machine number, etc., investigate whether this product is from the mall. 2. Maintain the image of the brand of the manufacturer and the shopping mall Although it can be ignored in accordance with the regulations, it is not responsible for the integrity of the brand of the manufacturer and the shopping mall.

The upstairs is very detailed, I add a few points: 1Remember to check the roots and whether the product is damaged at the time of sale.

2.Negotiate the possibility of other after-sales services, such as repairs, etc. 3.

You can ask the after-sales department to cooperate and open relevant after-sales certificates, so that you can have an inspection result on product quality, and then hand it over to the marketing department to adjust and solve.

There is no doubt that "Joy Family" has brought a new way of entertainment to people. Young people in love or married couples use their own ** to synthesize the image of "future children" here, which is not prohibited by law and is harmless. Under this premise, the way Joy Family operates and the behavior of its customers is legitimate.

The problem is that some people are still not addicted to it, and want to use celebrities to entertain themselves, and see what the "offspring" of their "combination" with big stars looks like, and the "Joy Family" meets this "enjoyable" need, and those movie stars, singers and football stars who are addicted to the "star chasers" have their portrait rights and reputation rights have been seriously infringed.

First of all, the "Joy Family" merchant infringed on the portrait rights of celebrities. The act of using celebrities** and "star chasers" to synthesize "offspring" is one of the business contents of "Happy Family" merchants. Regardless of whether the celebrity's ** is provided by the "star chaser" or the "joy family", because the "joy family" uses it to make profits without the consent of the celebrity, this behavior constitutes an infringement of the celebrity's portrait rights.

Secondly, all the "star chasers" and celebrities who synthesize "descendants" infringe on the portrait rights and reputation rights of celebrities. **Publish these** without the consent of celebrities, although it is named "news report", but it cannot hide the fact that it is making profits: first, today** are all for-profit organizations, although many of them are nominally "public institutions"; Second, these ** are undoubtedly attractive to readers and can significantly increase the "selling point" of **; Thirdly, if it is purely news reporting, then regarding such reporting, ** is not necessary.

In addition, due to the wide dissemination of synthetic ** through **, it will objectively cause obvious derogation of the reputation of the stars, and these ** will also infringe on the reputation rights of the stars. Therefore, it is not possible to escape tort liability on the grounds of "news reporting".

As for those "star chasers" who use celebrities, because their behavior of synthesizing "offspring" with celebrities is only for self-entertainment and has no purpose of profit, it does not constitute infringement.

The infringed star has the right to file an infringement lawsuit, and the defendant is the "Happy Family" merchant and the "star chaser" who published the "offspring" image of the star and the "star chaser". Celebrities have the right to ask the court to order the defendant to immediately stop the infringement, publicly apologize and compensate for economic losses. In this way, I am afraid that the "joy family" will not bring all "joy".

Classic Business Case Analysis (Corporate Transformation).