A dispute arose due to unpaid 20 yuan consumption. One party claimed that the buyer maliciously evaded the order, exposed photos, insulted and vented anger, while the other party claimed that they had no intention of negligence and demanded an apology from the seller after making up the payment. When a small conflict collides with law and integrity, how to distinguish between fault and malice? How can we rationally protect our rights? Recently, the People's Court of Xinzheng City, Henan Province successfully mediated the dispute caused by the unpaid 20 yuan. On the evening of May 29, 2024, Fan and his child purchased food worth 20 yuan from Yan's fried chicken restaurant in Xinzheng City. At the end of the business day, Yan found an unpaid order when checking the accounts, and then called the in store monitor. Through the video, Fan suspected that he had aligned the payment code twice but failed to receive payment, Yan determined that Fan had deliberately evaded the order. Despite multiple instances of order evasion in the store before this incident, Yan was furious and posted screenshots of Fan holding his child and buying fried chicken in two WeChat advertising groups that evening, along with inappropriate comments to vent his dissatisfaction. The next morning, when Fan was at work, he learned from a colleague that his and his child's photos had been exposed in a WeChat group. After checking the payment message and confirming that he had not paid 20 yuan, he immediately notified his husband to make up for the 20 yuan debt owed by the fried chicken restaurant. But regarding Yan's exposure behavior, Fan believed that he had paid for fried chicken multiple times, and this time he forgot to pay while holding his child, rather than intentionally evading orders. Yan exposed photos of himself and his child in a WeChat group, which not only violated their privacy but also damaged their reputation. Therefore, Fan demanded that Yan apologize in the WeChat group. Yan subsequently posted an apology in one of the WeChat groups, but was unable to do so due to being removed from the group chat by the owner of another WeChat group. Fan felt that Yan's apology lacked sincerity, and both parties had multiple communications regarding this. However, during the communication process, both parties refused to compromise and the conflict continued to escalate. Fan then sued Yan to the court, demanding that Yan stop the infringement, clarify the facts, delete his remarks, apologize and pay him 10000 yuan in emotional compensation and other expenses such as legal fees incurred in the case. During the trial, Fan stated that he simply forgot to pay and did not intentionally evade orders. Yan's exposure of photos and inappropriate language in WeChat groups caused him to lose face among neighbors and colleagues, and his reputation suffered serious damage. Yan insists that during the surveillance, it is suspected that Fan scanned the code twice but did not pay, which is intentional evasion of orders. His release of information is only to find Fan to fulfill his obligations and to protect his own rights. Considering that Fan has already made up the payment and Yan has also apologized, and both parties have had good communication in the early stage and have the willingness to resolve the conflict, the presiding judge has decided to use a "back-to-back" mediation method to resolve this case. After the judge explained the law and reasoning, the two parties finally reached a settlement. Yan issued a written apology letter to Fan, expressing his sincere apologies in words; Fan gave up other litigation requests and both parties agreed that there would be no further disputes. The controversy caused by a 20 yuan consumer debt has come to a satisfactory end under the mediation of the judge. The judge's statement defines unintentional mistakes and intentional evasion, and the key lies in subjective intention and behavioral performance. Unintentional mistakes stem from negligence, and consumers have no intention of evading payment. They will actively make up for the unpaid amount upon discovery. Intentional evasion refers to evading payment through covert and fraudulent means with the purpose of illegal possession. In the event of a suspected unintentional mistake, the merchant should first attempt to communicate, politely inquire about the reason for the unpaid amount, request a refund, and keep communication records. If communication is unsuccessful, you can check the in store surveillance, collect evidence of consumption, report to the police if necessary, provide surveillance footage, consumption bills and other materials to the police for mediation and handling. If the amount involved is large, it can be recovered through civil litigation. If there is suspicion of intentional evasion, the merchant should collect evidence as soon as possible, including surveillance videos, consumer receipts, witness testimonies, etc., to prove that the consumer has engaged in consumption behavior and evaded orders. Immediately report to the police once the evidence is complete. The act of evading orders may violate the Public Security Administration Punishment Law, and the police will impose penalties on evaders based on the severity of the circumstances, such as warnings, fines, or detention. It is worth reminding that businesses should not take extreme actions in the process of safeguarding their rights, such as restricting consumers' personal freedom, violently demanding payment, exposing consumers' privacy, etc. These actions may turn themselves from victims to infringers. They should always protect their legitimate rights and interests within the legal framework, while ensuring that they do not cross the legal red line. (New Society)