The owner of the ark was bombed: The perpetrator was spared but had to bow to the organization 100 prostrations, suspected of instigation

In recent days, social media has been abuzz with the fact that a chest farm owner in Ca Mau was 'bombed'. When the culprit came to apologize, the owner of the ark did not make it difficult, only asked to burn incense to bow to the ancestor. He questioned someone behind the instigation.

In the afternoon of August 20, Mr. Le Van Te (44 years old), owner of Six Te box, in TT. U Minh, H.U Minh Ca Mau, said his ark camp was "bombed" on August 16 and he livestreamed via his Facebook account when the "bomb" person came to apologize.

Mr. Te said that around 15:00 on August 16, he received a call from a young man who said that a family member had died in Channel 35, Nguyen Phuch commune (H.U Minh), wanting to buy a package box of about 40 million VND. At the same time, he said that about 19:00 on the same day, the house will be mourned, so he did not go to choose the ark but handed it all over to the owner of the ark.

When Mr. Te asked for the date of the burial, he hesitated for a moment and then said he would call back to inform him later. About 15 minutes later, he called back to say the burial date was Aug. 21.

"I was running an ambulance at the time, the camp staff was going for a burial at another funeral, but I withdrew my staff to deliver the ark in time for the shroud. However, when bringing the box to deliver as instructed, he could not find the house where the person died, called the young man back, he turned off the phone, so he transported the box back," Mr. Te said.

Later, Mr. Te found out that the "bomb" was Q.T.K (21 years old, Nguyen Bich commune, H.U Minh), an employee of a local orchestra rental person. Later, K. went with his mother to the apology box camp. Here, Mr. Te did not trouble K., but only asked K. to burn incense, prostrating 100 before the altar of the ancestors.

In addition, the owner of the ark also determined that Q.T.K. was just someone instigated by someone else behind it.

"I have identified the people who carry out the bombing, because the nature of the work is quite busy and I also want the family to educate their children and not make a big deal out of it. If I do it again, I won't let it go," he added.

In addition, the owner of the Six Te ark farm said that he is the owner of many other ark camps in many provinces and cities. Having worked as a funeral officer for more than 10 years, this is the first case where he has encountered a "ark bomb".

The story of "bomb goods" (ordering but not receiving goods when delivering) is a sore problem today. Even because they want to "boycott" an influential person or take goods, many people also race to order and then "bomb" and sometimes even go online to call for the same "bomb". However, few people notice that "cargo bombs" are against the law, watch out for processions to the body.

Commenting on the issue of "cargo bombs", lawyer Truong Quoc Hung, Director of Bi Law Firm, Vice President of Binh Duong International Arbitration Center, shared that the situation of "cargo bombs" not only affects sellers but also shippers when they arrive at the place of delivery but customers do not receive and have to pay for the "bombed" items.

"In essence, when customers place an order online with the shop owner, the two have now established a civil contract, specifically a sales contract, and the two parties will have separate rights and obligations in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code 2015. Article 119 of the 2015 Civil Code stipulates: Civil transactions are expressed orally, in writing or by specific acts. The customer's failure to take the goods is a violation of responsibilities and obligations to perform in the contract. And this is a violation, in other words, "bombing" is a violation of the law," Hung said.

Talking about the issue of "bombing" because he wanted to express his "boycott" views, Hung pointed out: "This is an act that can have legal and moral consequences. However, in assessing the extent of the violation and the consequences of this behavior, it is necessary to consider specific factors on a case-by-case basis."

Legally, "bombing" can violate regulations on fraud, fraud or impersonation in the field of business. This can be considered dishonest and deceptive behavior, causing damage to the parties involved. However, in some cases, the act of "bombardment" can be considered a form of expression of freedom of expression, when the practitioner wishes to criticize, criticize or "ostracize" the subject they deem untrustworthy or critical.

"However, freedom of expression is also limited and must not be used to infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of others or cause harm to them. It is necessary to consider legal regulations and ethical principles before making a specific assessment of "bombing" behavior in each specific case," Hung said.

To limit the consequences of "bombing", lawyer Hung said shop owners need to carefully check customer information, take photos of order messages as evidence and ask customers to deposit valuable orders in advance so that they can claim compensation or make a petition for the court to settle.

Thợ makeup bị nhà chú rể lục soát vali vì nghi truộm 20 triệu, live khóc nức nở JLO15:09:49 23/11/2024Mới đây, dư luận vừa xôn xao sự việc hai thợ trang điểm (make-up) tại một lễ cưới bị gia chủ giữ lại vì nghi ngờ trộm 20 triệu đồng. Sự việc xảy ra tại xã Mỹ Tịnh An, huyện Chợ Gạo (tỉnh Tiền Giang).