Bamboo does not fall｜Don’t feel absurd, because this is reality!

I read a long and complex news article, but after reading it, I felt it was quite meaningful. I can simplify it and talk about it briefly.

A company won a bid for a “video surveillance system project” from the Public Security Bureau, with a winning bid of over 46 million yuan.

This kind of thing, it’s complicated and also simple: the company delivers goods, the Public Security Bureau pays. Done.

The problem is, now the company has delivered the goods, but the Public Security Bureau doesn’t have the money to pay. What to do?

So, as the media said: the company sues, the court rules in favor. The losing party refuses to execute the payment and is “restricted”.

Here, the awkward point appears: the one responsible for criminal prosecution for the crime of refusing to execute is the public security organ. Think about the following style:

Court: You are suspected of refusing to execute.

Public Security: This refusal to execute, I will not file a case.

No problem, this is reality. When the person subject to enforcement is the public security organ, we must face the issue of “enforcement” itself, and ultimately still return to the problem of the public security system.

We are all reasonable people. When conflicts arise, the instinctive reaction is, what is the “reason”? The Public Security Bureau doesn’t pay, there must be a reason for refusing to execute.

The Public Security Bureau emphasized three points in court: first, this is fiscal funds; second, the fiscal allocation is delayed; third, it’s not that we don’t give, it’s that the finance hasn’t given.

And the court took some investigative measures and indeed did not find any enforceable property.

No money to pay, there’s no way!

However, the public information on the other side of the finance shows that, for the same project, the same procurement sequence, and the same execution period, they have allocated 55.8 million yuan to other winning companies.

So, whether it’s that they have no money, or that they have money but won’t give it to you, it’s hard to say if your company can’t get it.

An even more meaningful point is the court’s “restriction on consumption order”: since you have no money, then don’t spend money. But facing this “tool that the judicial system has few, can exert symbolic pressure on administrative organs“, the Public Security Bureau adopted two coping methods:

First, contact the company, ask them to withdraw the enforcement application and waive the liquidated damages. After that, the principal will be paid in about 3 years. The company refused.

It seems that the company has regained the initiative, but in reality, a formal letter from the other party directly “completely solved” the problem, and the court had to lift this restriction.

The content of the formal letter is, in short, two points: first, the Public Security Bureau is a special nature of work; second, it bears an important mission.

If you don’t allow consumption, what if an emergency occurs? Sudden problems, a few minutes of hesitation and delay will cause irreversible consequences, what to do?

The court was embarrassed. If something really happened, the judge couldn’t bear it, and could only obediently lift the restriction for them.

The report finally wrote two sentences that the judge said to the company, which were meaningful and also equivalent to a sad footnote:

“I’ve done what I can, and I’ve told you the consequences.”

“The Public Security Bureau, as the person subject to enforcement, is not just your company, all those who were ‘restricted’ were later released.”

When you dissect this matter, isn’t it quite thought-provoking? But just think about it, don’t say it out loud, and don’t write it down.

What else can I say here? Let’s talk about “The Merchant of Venice”. Shylock, the moneylender, lent a sum of money to Antonio, who was highly reputable and of high social standing. There was no collateral between the two parties, so Shylock made a condition: you can borrow money, but if you don’t repay it on time, I won’t want interest, I only want a pound of flesh from you, Antonio.

Too cruel!

But Antonio agreed, wrote it into a contract that was valid within the legal framework at the time, and both parties acknowledged and signed it voluntarily.

That is to say, now both parties are standing on the rules that everyone recognizes, and their actions are not a problem.

As a result, when the debt became due, Antonio really couldn’t repay the money. Shylock refused to negotiate, refused all leniency. He held the contract and demanded that the court execute it according to the contract.

He used the rules to the extreme. The court naturally had to be fair, otherwise it would be a small matter to be pointed at by others, and a big matter to damage the commercial credit of the entire Venice.

The contract is legal, the terms are clear, and the default is true. There’s nothing more to say, so the court decided to execute the contract according to the contract.

But after all, Antonio is a respectable figure and of high reputation. If the court really carried out such a cruel act of “cutting flesh”, wouldn’t the court be criticized and criticized in terms of social morality? Even because of the specific situation at the time, the power structure might be impacted.

The court was in a dilemma, and things changed. The clever judge decided to “interpret” the contract and threw the problem to Shylock: aren’t you going to execute it according to the contract? Aren’t you going to cut flesh? Then go cut it, but pay attention, the contract only stipulates that you can cut flesh, it doesn’t stipulate that you can bleed? It only stipulates cutting a pound of flesh, it doesn’t stipulate that you can cut more or less?

So, go cut it, but if you cut even a little more, a little less, or if you let Antonio bleed even a drop, you will be sentenced to death immediately.

Yes, the rules are still there, but it becomes difficult to execute.

Ironically, when Shylock found that the contract could not be executed at all, he could only make the second-best choice, not wanting the flesh, only the principal and interest, it was already too late. He had already refused forgiveness and now had no right to talk about money. Not only that, Shylock also had a new crime, intending to kill a citizen, and half of his property was confiscated, and the other half was given to Antonio.

When signing, when pursuing responsibility, when executing, when the execution will hurt respectable people, when it is unfavorable to the strong, when it is unfavorable to the weak… Shylock was very naive. He thought that everyone held the same ruler. He didn’t think about it. In different specific situations, the answers are often not the same.