The Analysis Of P2P Network Lending Dispute Between Tang Mou And Li Moumou

With the rapid development of network technology,P2P network lending has entered a period of rapid development since its entry into China.As a result,disputes caused by it have also increased,clarifying the legal status and corresponding legal obligations of the P2P network lending platform in online lending is the key to resolve the growing number of P2P network lending disputes.“Tang Mou v.Li Moumou and other P2P network loan disputes case" is a legal dispute arising from the P2P network lending.There are three controversial issues in this case,including whether the pat loan company has a review obligation,whether the pat loan company has fulfilled its review obligation,and whether the pat loan company should bear the responsibility of jointly repaying the loan in the case.First of all,although there is no explicit agreement in the contract that the pat loan company has the inspection obligation,the contractual obligation is not the only basis for the inspection obligation of the online loan platform,and it is also based on the accompanying obligations based on the principle of good faith and the legal provisions of China on inter-party contracts.As a network lending platform,pat loan companies have a review obligation.Secondly,as a provider of the platform,the pat loan company reviews the written materials uploaded by Li Moumou carefully,verifies Li Moumou’s identity information by telephone and video,and evaluates Lee’s borrower’s qualifications in detail.Review obligation.Again,Li Moumou and Tang Mou signed a loan contract by pat loan company,as the counterparty to the loan contract,Li Moumou was the repayment principal of the loan.The pat loan company and the borrower Li Moumou is an intermediary service contract relationship,In this case,the legal status of pat loan company is a contract intermediary.The pat loan company is neither the borrower nor the guarantor,and should not bear the responsibility of jointly repaying the loan in the case.In addition,because of the absence of obvious fraudulent nature,the format clauses on excessive service fees of online loan platforms do not directly violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations,nor do they directly relieve one’s responsibilities,aggravate the other’s responsibilities,and exclude the principal’s main rights.Therefore,it is not necessarily invalid.As an online loan platform for college students,the campus loan and P2P network lending have common features,but they also have their own particularities.At the same time,both are also different in management.