Is the deposit paid refunded or not refunded for taking care of someone else's pet cat for free during the holiday, and then leaving without permission causing the pet cat to get sick? Recently, the Haidian District People's Court in Beijing tried a dispute over "mutual aid custody". Ms. Zhang found "pet lover" Ms. Li through social media, and both parties agreed that Ms. Li would live in for free during the statutory holidays to help take care of her pet cat and use the house. Ms. Li paid a deposit of 2000 yuan to Ms. Zhang. Ms. Zhang discovered that Ms. Li had left Beijing without authorization during the agreed period, resulting in health problems for her pet cat due to lack of care. She returned to Beijing early and requested Ms. Li to move out, deducting a deposit of 1400 yuan as compensation for causing the pet cat to fall ill, and only refunding Ms. Li 600 yuan. Both parties had a dispute over the refund of the deposit, and Ms. Li subsequently filed a lawsuit to the court, demanding that Ms. Zhang refund the remaining deposit of 1400 yuan and pay a legal service fee of 500 yuan. Ms. Li claimed that she saw Ms. Zhang's message on social media about "free home care for pet cats during holidays" and considered staying in Beijing. She contacted Ms. Zhang and reached an agreement on home care for the pet cat. Ms. Li also paid a deposit of 2000 yuan to Ms. Zhang. Ms. Zhang returned home early and requested Ms. Li to move out of the house, only refunding the deposit of 600 yuan. Therefore, she requested Ms. Zhang to refund the remaining deposit of 1400 yuan and pay a legal service fee of 500 yuan. Ms. Zhang argued that the two parties reached an agreement on "watching cats at home" through social media platforms, and Ms. Zhang also received a deposit of 2000 yuan transferred by Ms. Li. The reason why the deposit of 1400 yuan was not refunded was because during the agreed period of living, it was impossible to view the situation of the pet cat through the camera. After inquiry, it was found that Ms. Li left Beijing without saying hello and went home, resulting in her pet cat being left unattended. Ms. Zhang had no choice but to return to Beijing early and found that her pet cat had health problems. She then requested Ms. Li to move out of the house and refund the deposit of 600 yuan. The deduction of 1400 yuan deposit is due to Ms. Li's breach of contract and departure for 5 days, calculated at 200 yuan per day, totaling 1000 yuan. Another 200 yuan is compensation for the loss of inadequate care of the pet cat. As Ms. Li used the bedding without her consent, an additional 200 yuan was deducted for the use of the bedding. After the court trial, it was found that the parties still had a basis for mediation and both parties were asked about their intention to mediate. Although the two parties have not signed a written contract, they have agreed on free "live in cat viewing" and "deposit guarantee". Ms. Li had previously promised to live in for free cat viewing, but during the process, she did leave home without taking care of the cat's diet, resulting in health problems for the pet cat. Finally, under the supervision of the judge, Ms. Zhang and Ms. Li reached a settlement, and Ms. Zhang refunded Ms. Li's deposit of 600 yuan in court. The judge stated that during statutory holidays, the mutual assistance model of finding free homes to take care of pets through social media may seem win-win, but in reality, it carries multiple legal risks. For example, if there is no written contract between the two parties, disputes may arise due to unclear provisions on rights and obligations; Due to the lack of mutual understanding and trust between the two parties, there may be issues such as pet loss, theft of property, and privacy leakage during the period of home care. The difficulty in providing evidence may lead to difficulties in protecting the rights of the parties involved. Moreover, the legal relationships involved in such cases are different from traditional contract disputes such as service, entrustment, and custody, and possess multiple attributes such as entrustment and custody. For example, in this case, Ms. Li, as the trustee, custodian, or service provider, is required to fulfill her duty of caring for the pet according to the contract agreement between the two parties, and to properly manage the pet and the house to avoid property losses for the owner. For such emerging "mutual aid custody" disputes, it is recommended to proactively conduct identity verification by requiring the trustee to provide their ID card, work certificate, and other means before entering into a contract, and to check their background information through information posted on social media. When signing the contract, it is recommended that both parties list the specific requirements for free housing and pet care one by one, and try to sign a written agreement to determine the rights and obligations of both parties, as well as the standards for completion and special circumstances for liability exemption. For the deposit, the deduction situation, refund conditions, etc. should also be listed, so that disputes can be resolved according to the agreement. During the performance of the contract, it is recommended to install monitoring equipment in public areas, confirm custody details daily through text messages, and use evidence retention techniques to strengthen legal risk prevention and control throughout the entire process and constrain potential moral hazards. Regarding the dispute of "mutual aid custody", the following three models can be tried to prevent legal risks: firstly, feasible. The "mutual aid custody" model should ensure that the mutual aid content agreed upon by both parties is legal and within the scope of public order and good customs, with clear provisions on mutual aid behavior to avoid ambiguity; Secondly, visibility. The "mutual aid custody" model allows for the verification and visibility of mutual aid content. For example, in this case, Ms. Zhang relinquished the use value of the house and Ms. Li provided care services for her pet cats, exchanging values and requiring mutual assistance. In the process of fulfilling the agreement, precautions should be taken before mutual aid, inspections should be carried out during mutual aid, and feedback should be provided after mutual aid as much as possible; Thirdly, it is quantifiable. The "mutual assistance and trusteeship" model, as in most cases it does not fall within the scope of well-known contracts in the Civil Code, should reach a consensus on the method and standards of contract performance. If both parties are unclear about the agreed content, they need to supplement the corresponding content. Therefore, both parties should negotiate and agree on the phased behavior of mutual assistance, the consideration standards for the content of mutual assistance behavior, the acceptance of mutual assistance behavior, and the corresponding liability for breach of contract when signing the contract. In this case, if both parties have clear agreements on the corresponding circumstances of deposit deduction, the corresponding legal risks of both parties can be further reduced. (New Society)