How did applying for a freight driver become a "partner" of the company? The judge stated that the employer cannot attempt to evade legal obligations under the guise of "cooperation". Mr. Gao, who came from Henan to work in Jiangsu, never expected that he was actually applying for a driver position, but in the end, he signed a cooperation agreement and became a "partner" of the logistics company, paying a deposit of 4000 yuan. Recently, the People's Court of Wujiang District, Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, heard a special contract dispute case and ultimately ruled that the cooperation agreement signed between the two parties was invalid, and ordered the logistics company to return Mr. Gao's vehicle deposit of 4000 yuan. In less than a month, the car was repossessed. In August 2024, Mr. Gao contacted a logistics company in Suzhou through an online recruitment platform to apply for the position of truck driver. The recruitment information that only requires driving qualifications and does not require renting or buying a car to earn over 10000 yuan per month has caught Mr. Gao's heart. After applying for the job, Mr. Gao signed a car reservation with the logistics company on August 11 of the same year, which stated a deposit of 4000 yuan. Two days later, the logistics company signed a cooperation agreement with Mr. Gao, agreeing that the company would allow him to drive the designated vehicles based on the logistics market and the recruitment of freight drivers. The cooperation period would be from August 13, 2024 to November 13, 2024. Mr. Gao could receive orders and deliver them through the online freight platform he cooperated with the company, and complete the company's target tasks. His salary would be paid by the company. On August 14, 2024, Mr. Gao began to engage in transportation business. However, less than a month later, the company took back the vehicle driven by Mr. Gao due to his failure to meet the assessment standards, transferred over 2000 yuan in profit sharing to him, and refused to return the deposit. During this period, Mr. Gao's platform revenue was over 8000 yuan. Mr. Gao believes that he applied for the driver position through online job postings and signed a booking and cooperation agreement under the guidance of the logistics company, but he is not familiar with the contents of these documents. Moreover, after the application was approved, the company did not provide training, which resulted in the inability to proficiently operate the platform system, and the various benefits promised initially were not fulfilled by the company. Mr. Gao, who couldn't help but feel angry, filed a lawsuit with the court. Upon learning of the lawsuit, the logistics company filed a counterclaim, stating that Mr. Gao did not meet the assessment standards stipulated in the contract. The company has the right to reclaim the vehicle, terminate the contract, and deduct the vehicle deposit in full. In addition, the company also demands that Mr. Gao pay the deductions incurred due to the failure to meet the transaction volume standards and the responsibility for cancellation. The main focus of controversy in this case is whether Mr. Gao's actions constitute a breach of contract in the name of "cooperation" to avoid the responsibility of the employer? The Wujiang District People's Court, after trial, believes that from the content of the contract, the cooperation agreement has multiple composite attributes such as vehicle leasing, labor dispatch, and performance betting. The agreement stipulates Mr. Gao's specific work content, work location, and work hours. The company has achieved labor management for him through designated order platforms, mandatory turnover indicators, and income sharing models, but has also clarified the relationship between the two parties in the form of a cooperation agreement that is neither a labor relationship nor a labor relationship. Its essence is to evade the responsibility of the employer in the name of "cooperation". In addition, the main terms of the cooperation agreement should be recognized as standard terms. The text of the cooperation agreement involved in the case was drafted and provided by the logistics company, and there is no evidence to prove that the logistics company had fulfilled sufficient and necessary obligations of prompting or explaining before the agreement was signed. The relevant terms are obviously unfair and illegal. For example, the assessment rules require drivers to be online from 7am to 8pm every day, otherwise a deduction of 50 yuan will be made each time. The working hours exceed the standard of 8 hours per day stipulated by the labor law for a long time, and overtime pay has not been paid. The assessment rules and breach of contract responsibilities of the cooperation agreement are both one-way penalties, which unreasonably exempt or reduce the responsibility of the other party, increase the responsibility of the other party, and limit the main rights of the other party, resulting in a serious imbalance of the rights and obligations of both parties, seriously damaging the legitimate rights and interests of workers, and being unfair. The relevant provisions should be deemed invalid. When the employee signs the agreement, they should carefully read the terms. Based on the facts that have been verified, the logistics company retrieves the vehicle involved in the case, indicating that the logistics company will no longer continue to fulfill the cooperation agreement. During the trial of the case, Mr. Gao also confirmed that the cooperation agreement has been terminated. Therefore, the court found that the cooperation agreement signed between the two parties has been terminated, and Mr. Gao is not at fault for the termination of the contract. In the end, the court ruled that the logistics company should return Mr. Gao's vehicle deposit of 4000 yuan and reject all of the company's counterclaim requests. Both parties have not appealed again, and Mr. Gao has already received the vehicle deposit. The verdict of this case has important warning significance for regulating the new business employment market. The judge reminds that the key to determining the nature of a legal relationship lies in substance rather than form. Employers should not attempt to evade legal obligations through labor management under the guise of "cooperation". When formulating contract terms, they should follow the principles of fairness and integrity, and must reasonably exempt themselves from responsibility, increase the obligations of the other party, or restrict the other party's main rights. They should also not arbitrarily evade commitments made, and should not use their advantageous position to unilaterally set unreasonable assessment standards. For job seekers, it is important to remain cautious when facing opportunities for "collaboration" in emerging business formats. Key terms such as job responsibilities, income composition, assessment standards, and breach of contract should be clearly stated in written contracts. Before signing any agreement, it is necessary to carefully review the terms, especially those related to deposits, security deposits, performance evaluations, and unilateral termination rights. At the same time, attention should be paid to retaining evidence such as recruitment communication records, work arrangement vouchers, and salary payment records, in order to effectively safeguard one's legitimate rights and interests in case of disputes. (New Society)