The woman s villa was taken by the property for profit, should the property be fully compensated?

After buying a super luxurious villa in her hometown 5 years ago, Ms. Lin has been working and living in Hangzhou and has no time to go back. One day, Ms. Lin suddenly saw on a TV series called "Me and My Children" that her villa had become the home of the heroine in the play. Ms. Lin urgently went home to find that her villa had been rented to the crew by the property and was made a mess.

There is also such a clip in the movie "See You or Leave", Li Qing played by Xu Fan works as a maid in a family in the United States, and Liu Yuan played by Ge You came to her to discuss, saying that a friend's crew wanted to borrow this house to make a movie, only for one day and would not break things. Li Qing relented for a while and agreed. didn't think about it, the crew came, and it didn't matter if they borrowed it or not, smoking, littering, wiring indiscriminately, and the house was like they bought it themselves.

Not only did it leave a lot of indelible marks, but it also damaged a lot of furniture. It can be seen that if you don't lend the house to the crew, you will already be revealed to us audiences.

However, without discussion, the villa he hadn't lived in for a long time was actually lent to the crew by the property company for filming, and it was also messed up, making the house out of shape. I'm afraid this is unacceptable to anyone, although the homeowner has sued the property, but in addition to the property, does the crew also have to pay part of the responsibility?

The property management company "is not immune to blame, because he has signed a "key escrow agreement" with the owner. But how did the crew get in? If the property is leased privately, then there is no doubt that the property needs to pay full responsibility, after all, it is very likely that the crew is unaware.

But if the crew didn't get the keys through the property, it's not just the property that needs to be sued.

Is the property a tort or a breach of contract? The owner has ownership of the immovable property in his own name, so the property owner's unauthorized rental of the house violates the owner's ownership, so the owner can sue the property for infringement. However, it is also possible for the property to constitute a breach of contract.

Because the property and the landlord have signed a service contract, under the circumstances required by the contract, the property rents the house privately, which is obviously a breach of contract, and from this point of view, the property still has a breach of contract.

The woman's villa was taken by the property for profit, and the property must be fully compensated, and they have violated the law by lending the villa to others without the woman's consent!

The villa is the private property of the individual, and the property has no right to make a profit, for which the woman has the right to have the property compensated.

I think it is necessary to pay full compensation. After all, the villa sold is the woman's private property, and the misappropriation of other people's private property without the consent of others is theft, and compensation should be made according to the price.

They should be fully compensated, and if all the houses that don't live in them let the property be profitable, then they can make a lot of money, and this kind of behavior should be stopped and not allowed to go unchecked.

The property should be fully compensated, first of all, the villa is the woman's private property, and the villa was taken for profit without the woman's knowledge, which is originally illegal.

The house belongs to the private property of the individual, and the property has no right to be used for profit-making purposes, so the property needs to bear most of the responsibility, but the person who uses the house should also be responsible for using it knowing that the house of the property does not belong to the property owner.

The property should be fully compensated, and the property allowed the crew to enter the owner's house to shoot without the owner's consent.

The property should ensure that the legitimate rights and interests of the owner are not violated. The woman handed over the key to the villa to the property for safekeeping, and during this period, the property handed over the villa to the TV series producer for use, which has violated the law and damaged the interests of the owner, so she should be fully compensated.

Of course, the property is liable to pay full compensation. Because it was a profit-making of the woman's property without her consent. This in itself is an offence.

Yes. Because the woman gave the villa to the property to take care of, and the property was used to make a profit under unknown circumstances, the property should be fully compensated.

I think so, after all, the house belongs to the owner, the owner is not there, and the property has the responsibility to manage the safety of the house.

Yes, the homeowner handed over the house to the property to ventilate the property, but did not hand over the right to use the property, which infringed on the legitimate rights and interests of the homeowner.

The women's villa was requisitioned by the crew, and the property was faced with the interests of the owner, and the owner could file a lawsuit by finding a lawyer.

The owner should recover the expropriated fees from the property, and at the same time sue the property, and the property disposes of the house without the consent of the owner, which is also an act of trespassing on the house, and the owner should defend his rights legitimately.

The owner applied the law to protect his rights, and the woman has reported the case and claimed 3 million yuan from the property and crew through the court and apologized, and removed the TV series from the shelves.

The women's villa was requisitioned by the crew and faced with the property of the first interest, and the owner should join the crew to sue the property in court and ask for compensation!

Take advantage of the popularity of the law and the Internet to collect relevant evidence, protect rights in accordance with the law, and put forward reasonable legal demands.

In fact, for the owner, buy the house, renovate the house, and live in. Many people are willing to entrust the property to take care of it, so that they can also worry about it, but remember to sign an agreement with the property, which must be specific and clear, including the relationship of rights and obligations and the liability for breach of contract, and to maximize the responsibility of the property. Be careful and go home in time to check in case the room is used for profit.

A woman can protect her own interests and demand compensation from the other party by violating her property rights and privacy rights. A lawsuit can also be brought against a property for failing to comply with the key custody agreement.

The main problem is the property, and the property must be held accountable, not only to get back the rent of the villa that was used as a filming location, but also to compensate the property for the loss of the items in the villa.

The woman should keep the evidence first, and then report the case directly to the local public security department to punish the arrogant property.

A woman can go to a lawyer's office or the procuratorate to exercise her rights and sue the property for encroaching on her house property rights and renting it to the crew without the owner's permission, so the property is illegal.

The property should be held liable, as the property must have played a role in earning fees.

I feel the need to be responsible. The property failed to fulfill its duty to maintain the safety of the dwelling, and the woman should claim compensation from the property.

The property must be responsible, and there is an obligation to protect the houses in the community, and the owner's house is inexplicably requisitioned, and he must be responsible.

The owner's house has been in a state of abandonment, and the property has no right to rent, and only the owner and the owner's authorized person have the right to handle the rent.

The property certainly does not have this right. But now the problem is that the property is rented out in violation of the law. Therefore, it is necessary to make compensation to the woman.

The property has no rights, and although the woman has not lived in the villa for many years, her property fees are paid on time. After paying the fee and collecting the money from the property, it is the responsibility to manage the woman's villa.

There are no rights to the property. The villa is still under the woman's account, and its ownership is owned by the woman, and the property has no right to rent the villa.

The property does not have this right because it is personal property, and the property has no ownership and use rights and cannot be disposed of at will.

The specific compensation of the property management company must be determined according to the results of the investigation of the incident and the specific amount of damaged items in the woman's villa. If in this matter, it is really the property management company that abuses its power for personal gain, then it must bear the main responsibility.

I think that since this woman can afford to buy a villa in Hangzhou, she must not be bad for money. And after buying it for so many years and not coming back to live, it may be more likely that it is just for investment. At first, she chose to call the police, but the police did not open an investigation.

So her main purpose should not be to ask for compensation, but to get things straight. Judging from the attitude of the property company, there must be a problem in this. The woman asked the manager for the first time if the house had been diverted for another purpose during her absence, and the manager said with great certainty

No way! >But when the woman took out ** as evidence, the property company began to be vague and slurred, and it was not clear to explain the matter. When the crew enters the house to shoot, it will more or less definitely damage the items in the house. The property company is also very big-hearted, and has not even repaired and restored these items.

The crew of "About Love" has made it clear that it did go to this villa for 7 days of filming, and a crew of more than 200 characters, can you not know about the property in the villa? The crew also said that they paid a lease fee of 60,000 yuan to the property.

However, the property said that the 60,000 yuan was not the rental fee for rent, but the cost of using the club and eating. According to this statement of the property, the crew is free to shoot with the villa?

Obviously, this argument is not true. Regardless of the role of the property in this matter, there is no escaping the responsibility. According to the final findings, there is definitely a corresponding responsibility.

That's a house bought by someone else, why use someone else's house to make a drama? Property shouldn't do that. $3 million in compensation.

I think that first of all, the right to use the house belongs to the woman, and the property has no right to use it without authorization, and the property management company should compensate the woman for all the losses and apologize to the woman.

The property should compensate the woman for all the lost items in the villa, as well as the cost of compensation for the failure to take care of the woman, as well as the cost of moral damage to the woman.

The property is illegally using the owner's villa, and the property must have charged the crew for filming, and the property should compensate for the fees collected without authorization, the cost of damage to the owner's villa, etc., and an apology is also required.

The property should compensate for the loss of the items and facilities in the woman's room, and give certain moral compensation.

It can no longer be transferred to others, or rented to others, which is a violation of citizens' house ownership, privacy, the woman in a fit of anger sued the villa property and the TV series production company together in court, I think no matter who this thing happens to, no one will feel good, because it is a house that I spent money to buy, but in the end it was cheaper The property and others, I haven't lived in it yet, but the house has become a second-hand house.

The property must be the real culprit. Because the property is to protect the rights and interests of residents, and if the crew wants to film in the villa community, they must obtain the consent of the property.

First of all, the property of the house must be responsible, because anyone who wants to enter the community must pass the consent of the property, and it is impossible for the local property to not know who the real owner of the villa is.

The property is the real murderer, the owner handed over the key to the property, but the property let the crew enter the villa for filming.

Definitely, yes, because only the property has the right and ability to let the crew station, and their responsibility in this matter cannot be evaded.

This cost should be borne by the property. Since someone else spent money to buy this villa, why should the property be rented to others for filming? The property doesn't have that right either.

It should be borne by the property in the villa area, and the property rents out the house to obtain rent, and the owner makes a profit, which should be responsible.

The crew and the property company, although the villa is not occupied, the property management is responsible, and the crew must pay for the use of the villa.

It should be given by the developer, because the developer did not tell the crew that the villa has been **.

Personally, I think it should be borne by the property and the crew who filmed the TV series in his house, because he gave the key to the property to protect the house, and the property uses it to make a profit, and has to bear part of the responsibility, and the crew has to bear most of the responsibility for using it for profit.

I think it should be from the property, regardless of whether the crew pays the fee or not, and how to enter, it is inseparable from the property authorization and help.

When Ms. Lin watched the TV series "Me and My Children" at home, she found that the home of the heroine in the play was the villa she bought in her hometown but never lived in. This kind of thing is outrageous, the villa I bought didn't go to live, but was requisitioned by the people who filmed the TV series, if I didn't see this drama, I wouldn't know about it. It has been confirmed that the villa used in the filming of the TV series is located in the original villa area of Shanglin in Cixi, Ningbo, and it is indeed Ms. Lin's house.

After further understanding, I learned that it was the property that rented the house to the crew without permission. Moving the owner's property and renting out the owner's house without permission, this kind of thing is also done by the property, which shows that this property has no professional quality.

03. There should be some additional moral compensation for Ms. Lin. His house was requisitioned for no reason to shoot a TV series, which inevitably made people feel insecure, and it turned out that the property could still "do whatever it wanted" with its own villa! In the future, when Ms. Lin really wants to live in this community, she should be very scared, maybe one day there will be a stranger in the room.

The property should be held responsible for its inappropriate practices, and Ms. Lim should be given some additional compensation in addition to the damage to the house.