How is the handling of the ‘corn’ incident at Baishazhou Market?

The "corn" incident in Baishazhou Market continues to ferment, and it has aroused more and more card fans to be highly angry at Baishazhou Market, constantly exposing the chaos of market management and the bad behavior of local merchants. How was this incident handled?

What caused the Baishazhou corn incident?

Recently, a card user in Binzhou, Shandong Province was bullied in a large truck at the Baishazhou Farmers Market. He shed tears and sent a video to accuse an unscrupulous merchant in the Baishazhou Market. Not only did he not give them any Freight, but also management fees, and rotten corn is used as freight.

So much so that another buzzword appeared on the Internet, that is, corn is used as the currency in Baishazhou market, that is, corn is used to pay for freight. Although this is a joke, it also shows the hatred of netizens for this phenomenon in Baishazhou.

Did the protagonist of the Baishazhou Corn Incident pay the freight?

The release of this video aroused the sympathy of many card friends, and even aroused the anger of many netizens, who began to collectively support this card friend. In particular, some self-media celebrities began to check in at the Baishazhou market and came forward to ask for shipping fees for this card friend.

After the fermentation of online public opinion and the intervention of some netizens on the spot, the Baishazhou market management came under pressure from all aspects of society. Preliminary coordination was carried out to reduce the shipping fee of more than 3,000 yuan for this card friend. The payment has been made, and the truck has left the Baishazhou market, and the corn in the truck has also been transported to where it is needed.

But the public opinion that followed was very limited and transparent, and it also aroused the voice of the majority of netizens. That is the need to investigate the Baishazhou market incident and rectify the chaotic order of the market. At present, the relevant local authorities have investigated the Baishazhou market and ordered it to make rectifications.

Why is the Baishazhou Corn Incident so influential?

First, this card friend is from Shandong. Everyone knows the hospitality of Shandong people and their fearless spirit of sacrifice. Whenever the country is in trouble, Shandong people will come forward, donate money and materials, and even bring people to rescue in person.

And this card friend is not afraid of certain local rules. He actually stood up publicly to criticize the chaotic management of Baishazhou Market, expressed the aspirations of many card friends, and made many mistakes. Things I dare not do.

Second, the epidemic in Wuhan was very serious last year. Shandong people not only sent cabbage, but also money. People arrived in batches with selfless dedication. Shandong even took the lead in arriving to provide support. Less than a year has passed since this incident. Has Wuhan Baishazhou Market forgotten it? This kind of doubt is the main reason for the fermentation of this incident.

Third, the Baishazhou incident was not an accidental event, but something that was bound to happen. It was nothing more than Shandong people becoming the first to eat crabs. Baishazhou Market has become accustomed to deducting freight from cardholders. Many cardholders have been owed freight for more than a year and have yet to get their money back. This kind of situation did not happen twice in Baishazhou, but was the unanimous reaction of cardholders across the country. Therefore, the fermentation of the Baishazhou incident is inevitable.

Written at the end: The corn incident in Baishazhou has been dealt with, but in the end the cargo owner has not yet submitted compensation for the loss of the goods. Cardholders in Binzhou, Shandong Province also gave up their demands for compensation. The freight has been settled and the vehicles have completely driven out of the Baishazhou market.

But the Baishazhou corn incident is not over yet, and is continuing to ferment on the Internet. The reason is that some bosses in the Baishazhou market still owe many cardholders across the country the freight, or look at the famous cards. The freight charges have not been settled. These phenomena will continue to ferment through the corn incident, and may even cause the market to face the possibility of bankruptcy.

The latest developments in the "corn" incident at Baishazhou Market: Guangxi cargo owners have sued Shandong truck driver Xiao Wang.

Baishazhou Market "Brothers Trading Company" reserves the right to prosecute the driver Xiao Wang. Major internet celebrities have deleted the videos and said they have nothing to do with the matter. Driver Xiao Wang said that the incident could be resolved through negotiation with the cargo owner later.

Not long after he bought a car, Xiao Wang, a driver from Shandong, received information on how to pull goods on a platform in Guangxi and helped a Guangxi cargo owner pull a cart of corn to the Baishazhou Market in Wuhan. Baishazhou Brothers Trading Company sold the goods until 4 p.m. that day. At that time, the brother firm was asked to settle the freight of 3,580 yuan. However, Brothers Trading Company required payment after the sale was completed. Xiao Wang refused and locked the car door and drove the car out of the market. The refrigerated truck was not refrigerated during this period. Seven hours later, I drove the car back to the market and was blocked in front of Brothers Trading Company. Later, the market management department and the police came forward to coordinate. When the corn spoiled, the brothers' trading company settled all the freight. Let Xiao Wang handle the spoiled corn by himself, and Xiao Wang gave the corn to a fish feeding farmer.

Before this matter was resolved, the driver Xiao Wang posted a video, crying that the company wanted to use the remaining corn to deduct the freight, and claimed that during the epidemic, the people of the country supported Wuhan, and now the people of Wuhan are like this Give back to the people of Shandong. This video gained a lot of sympathy from netizens and caused a regional scandal!

Do Brothers Trading Company have the right to strictly demand drivers not to unload and sell in the car? Operators with freight platforms have made it clear that the prices for unloaded sales and on-board sales are different, which means that the freight prices are different, which means that for on-board sales, there is a separate payment. A special legal lawyer from Sichuan Watch said: In terms of fresh agricultural products, there are "traditional rules" and they can be sold on cars, but the consent of the car owner must be obtained. If the car owner does not agree at the beginning, the commercial bank cannot force the car owner. Riders said: This industry rule is unreasonable. Many businesses play rough tricks after the sales are completed, not fully paying the freight or withholding the freight, causing the riders to suffer losses. In some years, I haven't received due compensation.

Truck drivers across the country are reminded to keep call records and transcripts of communications with the platform after receiving an order. This will help you safeguard your rights later. Do not contact merchants or suppliers casually. It is difficult to protect your rights without a third party.

The freight platform should also be fair and just, and protect the interests of drivers and companies reasonably and legally. If the platform acts as a third party, it is most appropriate for you to help settle the freight. Be fair and just and make settlements in a timely manner.

The "business rules" of commercial banks have existed for many years. Is there any room for improvement? You must consider that the driver relies on the car for a living and the goods are sold on the car. You have paid extra freight for one or two days, but after two days, should you unload the goods or double the payment? You and the driver are also one, and only by working together well can you win.

Personal opinion: Every adult should have some brains and not be led astray by some Internet celebrities. The compensation has already been paid, but you are still crying about "paying corn as freight". This is a moral issue. In particular, the driver himself admitted that the merchant did not say that corn would be used to offset the freight. Netizens cannot turn an economic dispute into a social incident just for a little traffic. Videos and texts are all remembered, and we look forward to the follow-up results. As Hubei people, the harm we suffered in this incident is beyond the understanding of many people. Hubei people also hate profiteers. After all, freight prices affect citizens’ food baskets and farmers’ sales. Only by achieving an orderly connection between rural and urban areas can the problem of difficulty in buying and selling be solved. Reach multiple parties to win!

Regarding the latest situation of the corn incident in Baishazhou Market, Sichuan Watch contacted Xiao Wang to learn what happened. The person in charge of the market said that Xiao Wang will face prosecution from the Guangxi cargo owner. The cargo owner has submitted the information to the court, and the next step is to wait for the court to hear the case. Xiao Wang also said that they did not mention corn as a deduction for shipping costs at that time. Now many bloggers have deleted videos about corn as a deduction for shipping costs.

What happened to the corn incident in Baishazhou Market? The specific incident is as follows

The owner of the cargo proposed to sell corn on the cold chain truck for a morning market. Xiao Wang agreed and arrived at Wuhan Baishazhou Vegetable Market Brothers Trading Company at around three o'clock in the morning on August 17. The staff started selling corn from Xiao Wang's car. So Xiao Wang and his friend went to rest.

At around 16:51, Xiao Wang became anxious and locked the car door directly, preventing the staff from selling corn. Over the next seven hours, some of the corn spoiled and became unsaleable.

The person in charge of Brothers Trading Company went to the scene to communicate with Xiao Wang and said that the freight must be paid after the goods are sold out. Xiao Wang is worried that he will not get a penny after the goods are sold out. Therefore, they have to settle the freight before they can continue to sell corn.

The two sides were in a stalemate in this situation. The person in charge called the market administrator. The market administrator and functional departments intervened at 15:00 in the morning on August 19th. They opened the car door and found that the corn had gone bad.

But the shipping fee was settled. However, the two tons of corn deteriorated and could not be sold, resulting in a loss of 7,500 yuan. Brothers Trading Company asked Xiao Wang to bear the liability for compensation.

Wuhan Baishazhou Vegetable Market also responded to this matter. First, this matter is a dispute between the cargo owner and the driver. Wuhan. Baishazhou Big Market Brothers Trading Co., Ltd. is a partner of cargo owners. There is no relationship with the driver to settle the freight.

Second. Shippers and drivers in electronic orders. Xiao Wang did not agree on when the freight will be settled? According to their trading practices, fresh goods have always been stored in cold chain trucks for transportation before the freight can be settled after the sale is completed.

There is a rule for the transportation of fresh goods, not just corn, but also fruits, vegetables and aquatic products, which are all sold on cold chain trucks required by the cargo owners. Normally, cargo owners will requisition. Driver's cold chain truck. The driver will not agree, but the cargo owner will refuse to pay the freight on the pretext that the goods have not been sold and no payment has been received. The driver can only agree to pay the shipping fee after the goods are sold.

Generally speaking, anyone who accepts this kind of order will know this convention. I also accepted the practice of settling freight charges after the goods are sold. This rule seems very unfair to drivers. Obviously the goods have been delivered, why not settle the freight? Does this regulation need to be adjusted or should it continue to be implemented? But in fact, this situation is difficult to correct. Because selling goods in cold chain trucks can save merchants’ handling fees and time, ensure the quality of goods, and greatly reduce sales costs.

If the driver of a large truck does not want to accept "truck pressing", it is unless he does not want to accept such an order. Because there are many fresh food cargo owners who will ask for pressing the car. If the big truck driver wants to accept this order and make money. Then you must accept this rule.

Fortunately, Brothers Trading Company will not hold Xiao Wang responsible, and Xiao Wang will no longer hold the other party responsible. This matter passed like this. At the same time, Xiao Wang also denied the rumors circulating online that Wuhan people bully outsiders. He claimed that he only had a dispute with the merchant. He was also given water and food as he drove his truck out of the market. People in Wuhan are very enthusiastic. The reception was very good. It was my first time taking an order, so I didn't know there was such a rule.

Sichuan Watch contacted a lawyer. The lawyer said that there is an issue to be judged here. First, there must be a contract. If there is a contract, it should be settled according to the contract. If there is no contract, it can be solved according to certain business practices. It is actually a dispute over the transportation of goods, so we must first look at the contract between the two parties. There are some clauses in the contract, such as transporting the goods to the destination, and then settling the corresponding payment. Generally speaking, the payment must be settled in a timely manner. Settle the payment. But for long-term cooperation, it can also agree to settle within a certain period. As long as it is agreed in the contract, it is legal. If the contract is unclear, business practices generally apply.

But this does not mean that Xiao Wang is not at fault, and there is no fault. According to our Civil Code, including the previous provisions of the contract law, it is to prevent excessive losses. As a basic principle, then this kind of rare If live agricultural products arrive, in principle, they should be sold immediately or processed accordingly. If Xiao Wang does not allow the corn to continue to be sold, and does not sell it for several hours, the first price of the goods may drop, and secondly, the price of the goods may drop. produce deterioration. The losses caused during this process should be borne by the transporter himself. Therefore, the owner of the goods may have to sue. If someone else has paid the freight, but the goods received have deteriorated, there may be another compensation in the middle. If transporting, a contract must be signed, otherwise some disputes may easily arise.

Now that the cargo owner has sued Xiao Wang, the next step is to wait for the court hearing. I hope everyone will look at this matter rationally and must wait for the final result. They cannot be preconceived. The specific reasons should be based on official reports. .

Looking at the video he posted, the shipping fee has been settled. But we can’t kill them all with one blow, and the market may not necessarily be all locals, but market managers definitely have a certain responsibility.

The corn incident in Baishazhou market continues to ferment, which is also a rectification warning for Baishazhou market supervision measures and industry regulations.

Regardless of whether the Shandong truck driver is right or wrong in this incident, the driver relies on his strength to earn freight to support his family; just like migrant workers working in construction to earn wages, both drivers and migrant workers are Disadvantaged groups make money through their own efforts. The Baishazhou market is different. The market should have reasonable and legal rules and regulations. Freight, loading and unloading time, management fees, etc. must be clearly informed in a timely manner. Customized rules cannot be used to contain or restrict others. Even if there is, it must be within a framework that is in line with the public will and the law. It cannot be based on the wishes of a few managers to formulate clauses with local protection and underworld characteristics, and it must also force others to comply.

Another truck driver from Binzhou was exposed. Last year, a trip to Baishazhou market cost 6,000 yuan in freight. It has been more than a year now and he still has not returned. Regardless of the details, if the goods are delivered safely, freight should be paid. This is a matter of course, but disputes continue. If things go on like this, there will be no credibility for the market.

It is not easy to cultivate a market, and its development prospects cannot be ruined just because of unique industry regulations. Only timely rectification and continuous improvement are the only way to operate in the long term.

The corn incident in Baishazhou Market has been dealt with. The driver of the large truck has received 3,500 yuan in delivery fees, and the incident has come to a successful conclusion.

The interested parties involved in this incident include large truck drivers, buyers and merchants.

The driver of the large truck is responsible for delivering the goods to the large buyer. The buyer is responsible for paying the delivery fee to the driver. The commercial bank is responsible for providing a venue for business and charging a certain management fee.

After the incident, the three parties each said something, claiming that they were justified, proving their innocence, and shifting the responsibility to others. Netizens were confused and unable to figure out the truth. Now let me talk about this matter. What do you think?

A driver surnamed Wang transported a cart of corn from Nanning to Wuhan Baishazhou Wholesale Market according to the contract. The corn arrived at three o'clock in the morning. After the buyer received the goods, he started selling it in the early morning.

After dawn, the driver asked the buyer to pay the delivery fee, paid and left. But the buyer insists on selling the goods, which means that they cannot unload the corn until the corn is sold out before they can pay the delivery fee and the driver can drive away.

The two parties could not agree, and the driver locked the car door in anger, preventing the buyer from selling goods normally. It was not until seven hours later that the driver opened the car door.

Since the corn is fresh, it is transported in cold chain trucks. The driver turned off the car engine and the refrigeration equipment could not work, causing the remaining 140 bags of corn to spoil and causing a loss of 7,500 yuan.

The problem came. The buyer quit and asked the driver to compensate for the loss and refused to pay the delivery fee.

The incident also alarmed the commercial bank, which asked the driver to leave immediately, which meant using the corn in the car instead of the delivery fee. Otherwise, management fees will be charged. This is the beginning and end of the whole incident.

So, what is right and wrong in this incident is a question that must be clarified. And some people express personal opinions without clarifying the issue, confusing the audience.

First of all, the truck driver had no problem delivering the goods. The truck driver requires the buyer to pay the delivery fee immediately, but the seller insists on selling the goods at a low price. Who is right and who is wrong?

In fact, this is a place where management is relatively chaotic, and I think commercial banks cannot escape the blame. In fact, selling goods under pressure is an unspoken rule in the industry, and the driver is a novice driver and does not understand this.

This unspoken rule has always existed and is the same across the country. Some people say it is an overlord clause. How to say it? This clause was made unilaterally. It seems to be reasonable to say that it is an overlord clause.

I just want to say something fair here. If the commercial bank makes this unspoken rule public in the form of an official document, and turns the unspoken rule into an explicit rule, and the driver will understand it at a glance, wouldn’t the problem be solved?

At this point, everyone should understand that the driver was also unjustly accused. In fact, there is no clause about selling goods under pressure in the contract. The driver was kept in the dark. Do you think he was unjustly accused?

It is common sense and not against the rules for buyers to demand that the sale of goods be carried out according to unspoken rules.

I think the commercial bank played a disgraceful role. The commercial bank came forward to ask the driver to pay management fees, which was suspected of extortion. Fortunately, the driver did not accept this trick, so the commercial bank did not succeed. I think the commercial bank should draw up a formal contract as soon as possible and clearly stipulate the sale of goods, so that there will be no conflicts.

The above is my analysis. Do you think it makes sense?

It is said that a certain Wang from Shandong Province took a job online, picking up a load of fresh corn (please note that it is "fresh") from Guangxi to Baishazhou Market in Wuhan. As a rule, after Wang delivers the goods to the market, the consignee is responsible for unloading the goods, inspecting them, and then paying the freight.

But this is a cart of fresh corn. It is said that there is a "traditional rule" for transporting this kind of cold chain fresh goods, which is to "press the cart" and sell it while reeling! You might say, if they can’t sell everything in a month, then don’t they have to stay for a month and not be able to leave?

No, the rules generally stipulate: three days! Having said this, I believe with a high probability: The main responsible party for this Baishazhou corn incident is Wang himself!

I believe that the client in Guangxi must have explained this situation in the electronic contract. Each industry has its own rules, and the so-called rules have been "agreed and established" and everyone should abide by them. !

The questioner asked how the incident was handled? At present, Wang has received the freight, but subsequent problems still need to be solved: For example, because Wang did not cooperate and forcibly closed the door to prevent the goods from being unloaded, 140 bags of corn spoiled. Who will bear the loss? There is also Wang who spreads unfavorable remarks about the Baishazhou market and damaged the reputation of the market. Will the market sue?

Now is a society ruled by law. We sometimes sympathize with the weak, but we cannot ignore the facts. Whoever is responsible should bear the consequences. Okay, that’s all. If you don’t like it, don’t complain!

The so-called "corn" incident in Baishazhou Market has been resolved on the surface, but the aftermath may be difficult to deal with.

Comprehensive information from all parties and sort out the entire incident.

The driver Wang didn’t know these rules and locked the car door in anger for seven hours. As a result, 140 bags of corn spoiled. The cargo owner suffered a loss of about 7,500 yuan.

After some tossing, the Guangxi boss gave in and agreed to pay the driver Wang’s freight in advance, and entrusted a brother firm to pay for it.

"The book cannot be written, and the words cannot be exhausted." Any one-sided statement is one-sided. Driver Xiao Wang has posted another video admitting that he received the freight.

It can be seen that the real economic losses are caused by the Guangxi bosses. If the goods are damaged, whoever buys them will be unlucky and will have to pay for the freight in the end. The one that suffered reputational damage was Wuhan Baishazhou Market.

Looking at the cause of the entire incident, it was actually caused by a misunderstanding between the two parties. After Shandong driver Xiao Wang received the order, he did not ask clearly about the shipping cost. Who would pay? When to pay? As for the boss in Guangxi, he may also have inertial thinking. The drivers he has used before all know the rules. They know that freight is paid after the loan is sold out, and they also know who buys and pays! But I happened to meet Xiao Wang, who claimed that it was his first time doing this kind of "green thing".

What may have caused this matter to continue to ferment is the place names of Shandong and Wuhan. During the fight against the epidemic, people across the country supported Wuhan. The heat in Wuhan has not come down yet. And subconsciously, maybe more people hope that the recipient of the favor will know the reason for repayment. This elevates personal grievances to a regional debate, which is worth pondering.

It is said that Baishazhou Market has sued the driver Xiao Wang for spreading rumors. In fact, it is not easy for anyone. People sympathize with the drivers of long-distance trucks, but in fact market operators also have difficulties. If they don't push the trucks to sell the fresh products, where would they have so much cold storage? And there are expensive moving costs! If all these are taken into account, do consumers have to foot the bill in the end? ! And it will also cause a waste of time and space!

It can be seen that we must learn to think from other people’s perspective when encountering problems. It’s not easy for anyone, just do it and cherish it.

At present, the Shandong boy has received 3,580 yuan in freight, and the corn in the car has also been properly disposed of. So whose fault is this?

First of all, the Guangxi cargo owner was at fault. He placed an order online and transported a cart of fresh corn from Nanning to Wuhan Baishazhou Wholesale Market. The brothers from Baishazhou Market sold it on his behalf, but he did not Explain when the money will be given and who will give the money.

Secondly, the driver Wang was also at fault. Since it was the first time for Wang to take this kind of order, he was not clear about the compliance and refused to cooperate. He even parked and locked the car for seven hours, resulting in missing the final order. Good selling time, and caused 14 bags of corn to spoil, causing the owner to lose about 7,500 yuan.

So is there anything wrong with Baishazhou Market? To be clear, Baishazhou Market is just selling on behalf of friends. According to the rules of the industry, there is no obligation to settle freight charges when selling on behalf of others. It was obviously unreasonable for the driver Wang to ask the merchants at Baishazhou Market for money.

But no matter what, the matter was properly handled in the end, but it also reminded people that it is best to make it clear to anyone and anything in the future, especially about money. aspects to avoid greater misunderstandings.