Get the latest crypto news, updates, and reports by subscribing to our free newsletter.
Giấy phép số 4978/GP-TTĐT do Sở Thông tin và Truyền thông Hà Nội cấp ngày 14 tháng 10 năm 2019 / Giấy phép SĐ, BS GP ICP số 2107/GP-TTĐT do Sở TTTT Hà Nội cấp ngày 13/7/2022.
© 2026 Index.vn
The emergence of AI-powered music-creation platforms such as Suno is expanding the possibilities for musical creativity, but it is also introducing significant copyright risks. While Suno says it does not allow the use of copyrighted material, the article describes vulnerabilities that can be used to generate imitations of well-known songs.…
A dispute over an 8 billion VND land purchase in Dak Lak between two sisters has been resolved through appeal, after a deposit contract failed to complete notarization within the agreed timeframe.
In June 2022, the plaintiff, T., and her sister, Th., signed a deposit contract for the transfer of a 68-square-meter plot priced at 8 billion VND. Under the agreement, T. paid 300 million VND upfront, and both sides committed to completing notarization within three months.
When the deadline passed, the land transfer was not executed.
T. argued that Th. did not fulfill her obligations and failed to disclose that the asset was mortgaged. When notarization was due, T. learned that the land use certificate was encumbered by a bank loan. T. requested the release of the mortgage, but was told it could not be done.
The bank confirmed that the mortgage had existed since 2016 and that the transfer involving the mortgaged land proceeded without the bank’s consent.
The trial court ruled the deposit contract invalid and ordered the return of the 300 million VND deposit. However, it rejected T.’s request for a 3 billion VND deposit penalty.
On appeal, the Dak Lak regional court found that the failure to discharge the mortgage as agreed caused the contract to fail, and it determined that a penalty should apply. While T. claimed a 10x penalty (3 billion VND), the appellate court held that a 20x penalty was appropriate.
The appellate court also noted that repair costs were not considered because T. had voluntarily waived that claim.
The appellate decision upheld the deposit contract as valid and ordered Th. to pay T. a total of 3.3 billion VND, comprising the deposit and the penalty.
Premium gym chains are entering a “golden era” that is ending or already in decline, as rising operating costs collide with shifting consumer preferences toward more flexible, community-based ways to exercise. Long-term memberships are shrinking, margins are pressured by higher rents and facility expenses, and competition from smaller, more personalized…
