TRENDING
A Shanghai court has ruled that a man is not required to return 300,000 yuan (US$40,000) given to him by his ex-girlfriend, who made the payment in an attempt to save their relationship after he discovered her affair with his nephew, according to the South China Morning Post (SCMP). The man, Li, began a relationship with the woman, called Xu, in 2018. However, two years later, Li found out that Xu had been unfaithful to him and was having an affair with his nephew, as reported by the Shanghai Morning Post. Watch: Wang Yi-Doval Meet: Kailash-Mansarovar Yatra to Resume as Doval-Wang Yi Reach Consensus Upset by the betrayal, Li decided to end the relationship. In response, Xu wrote him a letter of apology, saying, “I have deeply reflected on my mistakes. Yes, I’ve cheated on you multiple times, causing you immense pain. I am sincerely remorseful. I will correct my mistakes and compensate you with my sincerity.” Over the next two days, Xu transferred 300,000 yuan to Li through several bank transactions, hoping to repair their relationship. Li accepted her apology, and the couple stayed together until 2022, when he discovered that Xu was still involved with his nephew. Also read: Elon Musk surpasses the net worth of Bezos and Zuckerberg combined This new discovery led Li to permanently end the relationship. After the breakup, Xu demanded the return of the money she had given him two years earlier, claiming it was intended as a conditional gift tied to the expectation of marriage. Since they had parted ways and no marriage occurred, she argued that Li should repay the amount. Li refused, saying that Xu’s repeated infidelity had caused him great emotional harm, and he viewed the money as compensation for her actions. Xu then took the matter to court, seeking to recover the funds. After reviewing the case, the court ruled in favour of Li. It determined that the money had been given voluntarily by Xu as a gesture to repair their relationship and did not constitute a gift contingent on marriage. The court concluded that Li was not obligated to return the money. (With inputs from agencies) None
What’s New
Spotlight
Advertisement
Featured News
Latest From This Week
Popular News
