这个"十一"长假，不少消费者提前规划行程，预订酒店，期待一场愉快的旅行，却遭遇了闹心事 ——早已预订成功的酒店订单，被平台或酒店以"价格错误""房源不足"等理由单方面取消，而同样房型 在国庆期间的价格已飙升至原价的三倍以上。 酒店以"价格错误""房源不足"等非不可抗力取消订单，构成根本违约。消费者有权要求继续履行合 同（按原订单入住），或主张赔偿全部损失，包括重新订房的差价、交通改签费等直接支出，以及合理 间接损失。平台也不能以"仅提供技术服务"为由置身事外。若平台明知酒店存在欺诈行为仍提供服务， 或未履行审核义务导致消费者权益受损，应承担连带责任。 十一长假的消费热潮，可谓是契约精神的试金石。当160元的酒店订单被600多元的现实价格撕毁， 撕开的不仅是价格标签，更是市场经济的法治根基。站在商家的角度看，提前低价预订能确保基本收 益，因此，先将房间以低价订出，事后有高价订房需求时，再来毁约低价订单，无疑最能实现"利益最 大化"。倘若商家这种"聪明做法"违约成本很低，此类做法势必成为常态。 商家肆意毁约涨价，让节日变"劫日"。而某些商家之所以敢于肆意违约，可能因为"好说话"的消费 者太多。法律不会保护躺在权利 ...

国庆中秋"双节"到来，旅游市场热度不断攀升，住宿需求也随之增加。然而，部分酒店却以房间订满、 临时装修等借口趁机上演"违约涨价"的戏码，更有甚者虚标原价，看似优惠，实则套路，给游客添 了"堵"，给行业添了"乱"。 酒店价格在节假日期间出现浮动，本是市场供求关系作用下的正常现象。假期集中出行带来订单激增， 叠加人力、采购等运营成本上涨，价格比平日有所上浮，也在情理之中。然而，以各种理由单方面取消 订单后再上调房价的"违约涨价"行为，并非合理的价格调整，而是部分商家背离了契约精神和市场规 则。 监管部门要以监管促规范。除了加强对消费者的消费提示外，也要有的放矢地采取"硬举措"：线上，对 预订平台、旅游APP等价格信息开展重点监控；线下，通过实地抽查等方式督促实体商家规范定价和服 务行为，加大对违规商家的惩处力度。同时，要畅通维权渠道，降低消费者维权成本，划定市场"红 线"。 节假日是旅游业释放活力的"黄金时段"，更是检验市场秩序与服务水平的关键节点。唯有守住诚信、坚 守契约，把短期的"人潮"转化为长久的"人心"，才能让节假日带来的短期流量转化为推动旅游业长期发 展的持久动能。 （文章来源：经济日报） 住宿业经营者 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses a recent incident involving a couple in Guangzhou who were asked to vacate their rented room due to a violation of the rental agreement after the birth of their child, highlighting the tension between contractual obligations and human considerations in rental agreements [2][4][11]. Summary by Sections Incident Overview - A couple rented a room in Guangzhou through a platform and faced eviction after the birth of their child, as the landlord claimed they violated the rental agreement by exceeding the allowed number of occupants [5][7]. - The rental contract specified a maximum of two occupants per room and prohibited minors, which the couple violated by having a child [8][12]. Platform's Response - The rental platform stated that they had provided multiple solutions to the couple, including a no-fault termination of the lease, but the couple refused to accept these options [2][9]. - The platform emphasized the need to balance the living experience of the couple with that of other tenants, leading to the decision to terminate the lease after failed negotiations [2][11]. Legal and Social Context - The rental agreement's restrictions are rooted in local regulations aimed at preventing overcrowding and ensuring safety, with specific guidelines on minimum living space per person [12][14]. - The article raises questions about the balance between contractual obligations and the humane treatment of tenants, especially in cases involving childbirth and family dynamics [11][15]. Broader Implications - The incident reflects broader issues in the rental market, including discrimination against certain demographics such as the elderly and families with children, which can exacerbate housing challenges [14][16]. - Suggestions for policy improvements include creating more inclusive rental agreements and developing public housing initiatives to support families and vulnerable populations [15][16].

Core Viewpoint - The incident involving three women and four children at a restaurant in Zhengzhou, Henan, highlights the complexities of social media-driven public opinion and the importance of clear business practices and communication [1][2][3] Group 1: Incident Overview - The restaurant owner claimed that the group consumed over 140 yuan, contrary to the initial report of 70 yuan, leading to accusations of dishonesty [1] - The initial public sentiment favored the restaurant owner, viewing the customers as greedy for taking advantage of the restaurant's goodwill [2] - As more information emerged, public opinion shifted, revealing the restaurant's lack of clear rules regarding free refills [1][2] Group 2: Business Ethics and Public Perception - The incident reflects a broader issue where public opinion often prioritizes moral judgments over contractual obligations, suggesting a misunderstanding of business ethics [2][3] - A comparison was made to a similar incident involving China Southern Airlines, where the airline honored tickets sold at a significantly reduced price due to a system error, demonstrating a commitment to uphold business principles [3] - The narrative suggests that businesses should focus on clear communication of rules and responsibilities rather than relying on moral appeals to justify their practices [4]

Core Viewpoint - The public letter from Junlan Investment highlights serious governance issues at Borunte, accusing the current chairman and general manager of exploiting the company and humiliating shareholders, calling for a vote to restore normal governance and remove the chairman [3][4]. Group 1: Governance Issues - The controversy began when the chairman proposed a fixed monthly salary of 2 million yuan and a year-end bonus based on "company profit - 1 yuan," which was rejected by the board due to the company's loss [5][6]. - Junlan Investment, holding 1.54% of Borunte's shares, accused the chairman of using institutional design to empty the company and detailed how he gained control through high valuation financing and manipulation of the governance structure [5][6]. - The chairman modified the company’s articles to ensure that directors must be current employees, effectively creating a closed loop of power that prevents external shareholders from defending their rights [6][10]. Group 2: Financial Performance - Borunte, founded in 2008, has seen a decline in financial performance, with revenues dropping from 447 million yuan in 2020 to 241 million yuan in 2024, and cumulative losses exceeding 300 million yuan [10][11]. - The company faced significant challenges, including being delisted from the National Equities Exchange and Quotations (NEEQ) in April 2023 due to audit issues and declining market reputation [10][11]. Group 3: Industry Context - The robotics industry is thriving, yet Borunte's situation reflects a disconnect in the understanding of contractual obligations and governance, which can lead to detrimental outcomes for all parties involved [13][14]. - The importance of maintaining a strong sense of contractual spirit is emphasized, as it is crucial for sustaining relationships between entrepreneurs and investors, ensuring mutual success [13][14].

Group 1 - The core issue revolves around the chairman's proposal for a monthly salary of 2 million yuan and a year-end bonus based on company profits minus one yuan, which was rejected by the board [1][2] - The company, Borunte, has experienced significant financial decline, with cumulative losses exceeding 300 million yuan from 2020 to 2024, and revenue dropping from 447 million yuan in 2020 to 241 million yuan in 2024 [4][6] - The public letter from Junlan Investment accuses the chairman of exploiting the company through governance manipulation and calls for a restoration of normal governance structures [1][2] Group 2 - Borunte, founded in 2008, specializes in the research and development of industrial robots and has seen its revenue peak at over 400 million yuan, but has since faced severe financial challenges [5][6] - The chairman, who is also the largest shareholder with a 21.65% stake, has been criticized for his management practices and the company's governance structure, which has become increasingly closed off to external shareholders [3][5] - The company's reputation and market sales have been severely impacted after it was delisted from the National Equities Exchange and Quotations in April 2023 due to financial reporting issues [4][6]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the internal conflict at the robotics company Borunte, highlighting the controversial salary demands of its chairman, Yin, and the subsequent call from investors for a restoration of normal governance structures to protect shareholder interests [3][5][6]. Group 1: Company Background - Borunte, founded in 2008, specializes in the research and development of industrial robots and has grown from a small enterprise to a national-level specialized company with revenues exceeding 400 million and profits over 100 million [3][10]. - The company faced significant challenges, including a loss of over 300 million and the termination of its listing on the national stock transfer system in 2023 due to audit issues and declining sales [9][11]. Group 2: Internal Conflict - The conflict escalated when Yin proposed a fixed monthly salary of 2 million yuan and a year-end bonus based on company profits minus one yuan, which was rejected by the board due to the company's ongoing losses [5][11]. - Investors, particularly Junlan Investment, accused Yin of exploiting the company's governance structure for personal gain, claiming he had effectively privatized control over Borunte [6][7]. Group 3: Governance Issues - The governance structure was altered in April 2025, allowing only employees with contracts to serve as directors, which investors viewed as a means to prevent external shareholders from protecting their interests [6][11]. - The article emphasizes the importance of contractual integrity in maintaining trust between entrepreneurs and investors, suggesting that breaches of this trust can lead to detrimental outcomes for both parties [13][14].

Group 1 - The article discusses the challenges faced by the livehouse industry, particularly regarding the profitability of joint performances in the current market environment [3][11][18] - A recent incident involving the Soft Persimmon Band highlights issues of contract integrity and professionalism among event organizers, leading to the cancellation of a scheduled performance [5][7][18] - The article emphasizes the importance of a contractual spirit in the industry, as many organizers are canceling performances without proper agreements, which negatively impacts their reputation [11][18] Group 2 - The financial breakdown of a typical joint performance reveals that significant ticket sales are required to cover costs, indicating the high-risk nature of organizing such events [12][18] - The trend of "bird-like viewing" behavior among audiences, where attendees leave after watching their preferred band, poses a challenge for joint performances to achieve overall profitability [15][17] - Despite the challenges, joint performances remain a vital platform for emerging bands to gain exposure, although established bands tend to move towards solo performances as they grow in popularity [17][18]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the rise and fall of a prominent Chinese entrepreneur, highlighting the contrast between his successful beverage brand and the failure of his personal branding efforts, ultimately portraying him as a flawed yet talented individual who struggled with public perception and personal image [4][5][89]. Group 1: Entrepreneurial Journey - The entrepreneur, known as "Mr. Zong," started his career in a challenging economic environment, eventually founding Wahaha, which became a leading beverage brand in China [9][13][20]. - By 1991, Wahaha achieved revenues exceeding 200 million yuan and profits of 40 million yuan, prompting significant expansion efforts [20]. - The acquisition of a struggling state-owned enterprise, Hangzhou Canned Food Factory, marked a pivotal moment in Wahaha's growth, leading to a successful turnaround within three months [21][22][24]. Group 2: Marketing Strategies - Mr. Zong's marketing genius was evident in his unique strategies, such as the "production and sales joint body" model, which helped stabilize Wahaha's dealer network and financial health [34][35][40]. - His approach to building strong relationships with employees and dealers contributed to a stable and loyal distribution network, with many dealers remaining for decades [37][43]. - The company's innovative marketing tactics and brand positioning set it apart from competitors, establishing Wahaha as a household name in China [39][40]. Group 3: Personal Branding and Public Perception - Mr. Zong's public persona was carefully crafted, emphasizing his humble lifestyle, such as wearing cloth shoes and traveling in economy class, which resonated with the public [70][76]. - However, this carefully constructed image began to unravel as inconsistencies in his narrative emerged, leading to public skepticism and criticism [84][88]. - The article suggests that the overemphasis on nationalism and personal branding ultimately backfired, resulting in a tarnished reputation and a disconnect between public perception and reality [60][84][89].

Core Viewpoint - The inheritance dispute within the Hangzhou Wahaha Group highlights the challenges faced by first-generation Chinese entrepreneurs in wealth transfer, revealing issues related to institutional frameworks, human nature, and the logic of wealth [1][20]. Group 1: Inheritance Dispute - The lawsuit initiated by three plaintiffs claiming to be the non-marital children of Zong Qinghou seeks to freeze an account containing $1.8 billion, which they allege is part of a family trust promised by their father [3][4]. - The account, established under the offshore company Jian Hao Ventures, has accumulated $1.8 billion since 2003, falling short of the verbally promised $2.1 billion by $300 million [3][4]. - Zong Fuli, recognized as the "only daughter," is accused of improperly withdrawing $1.1 million from the account, which raises questions about the integrity of the trust [3][4]. Group 2: Corporate Leadership Transition - Zong Fuli took over Wahaha in 2024 during a time of significant industry transformation, facing competition from brands like Nongfu Spring and new tea beverage companies [8][10]. - She implemented a series of reforms, including replacing long-standing executives and restructuring performance assessments, which led to a 53% increase in revenue to 72.8 billion yuan in 2024 [10]. - Despite initial successes, the ongoing inheritance dispute casts a shadow over her leadership and reform efforts [10][11]. Group 3: Legal and Institutional Challenges - The core of the legal dispute revolves around the 29.4% equity held by Zong Qinghou, which was not placed in a family trust or formally arranged for inheritance, leading to potential division among heirs [11][21]. - The lack of clear legal documentation regarding the trust and inheritance arrangements has created uncertainty, contrasting with established practices in other countries like Japan [21][23]. - The generational differences in understanding authority and contractual obligations are evident, with Zong Fuli advocating for formal agreements while her father relied on informal promises [22][23]. Group 4: Broader Implications for Chinese Family Businesses - The Wahaha case serves as a microcosm of the broader challenges faced by first-generation Chinese entrepreneurs in establishing sustainable wealth transfer mechanisms [20][24]. - The outcome of the lawsuit will not only determine the ownership of 34 billion yuan in assets but also reflect the evolution of Chinese commercial practices from informal to more structured governance [24].