directory

1. Yin Chongyi v. Wuhan Hanfu Supermarket Co., Ltd. Hanyang Branch Sales Contract Dispute

2. Liu Xin v. Shaanxi Lixin Pharmacy Sales Contract Dispute

3. Wang Xin v. Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd. Online shopping contract dispute

4. Li Xiaodong v. Jiuxian.com e-commerce joint stock company online shopping contract dispute case

5. Yang Bo v. Bayannaoer Hezhong Yuantong Express Co., Ltd. Wulat Qianqi Branch and Fu Yingchun Online Shopping Contract Dispute

6. Fan Jianwu v. Guangdong Provincial Cultural Relics General Store Sales Contract Dispute

7. Yu Aoyong v. Bi Liping Product Seller Liability Dispute

8. Wang v. Beijing Yiluyou Baby Products Co., Ltd. Service Contract Dispute

9. Wu Junmei v. Zhejiang Pingyun Commercial Trading Co., Ltd. Sale and Purchase Contract Dispute Case

10. Wang Yi v. Tianjin Zhongjin Peixian Automotive Service Co., Ltd. Dispute over the sale contract

I. Yin Chongyi v. Wuhan Hanfu Supermarket Co., Ltd. Hanyang Branch for a dispute over a sales contract

– An operator selling expired food is an act of selling it knowing that the food is unsafe. Consumers have the right to request a refund of the payment and pay ten times the price for compensation.

(1) Basic case

On June 17, 2013, Yin Chongyi paid 251 yuan to Wuhan Hanfu Supermarket Co., Ltd. Hanyang Branch (hereinafter referred to as Hanfu Supermarket) to buy a box of Taohuaji Ejiao cakes. The production date stated on the outer packaging of the food was August 7, 2012, and the shelf life was 10 months. After purchasing, Yin Chongyi found that the food had passed the shelf life, and asked the supermarket to return the goods to no avail. He then sued the People’s Court of Hanyang District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province, requesting Hanfu Supermarket to refund the payment of 251 yuan, compensate 2510 yuan ten times the payment, pay 3,000 yuan for transportation and 3,000 yuan for spiritual comfort.

(2) Referee results

The court of first instance held that the shopping invoice provided by Yin Chongyi could prove that he had established a sales contract relationship with Hanfu Supermarket. It was determined whether the Taohuaji Ejiao cake that Yin Chongyi now held that had expired and based on which he filed a lawsuit was the product sold by Hanfu Supermarket at that time. First of all, Yin Chongyi provided the actual product and the shopping invoice, which completed the burden of proof to prove that consumers shopped, and Yin Chongyi reported the situation to Hanfu Supermarket on the day of purchase and requested a return. The two parties failed to negotiate and appealed to the Hanyang Branch of Wuhan Administration for Industry and Commerce on the same day. Yin Chongyi reported the product quality problem in a timely manner. Although Hanfu Supermarket argued that the expired Peach Blossom Ji Ejiao Cake that Yin Chongyi requested to return was not provided by Hanfu Supermarket, it did not submit to the court the evidence of purchase at the same time to prove that it was not sold by Hanfu Supermarket, and the Peach Blossom Ji Ejiao Cake provided by Yin Chongyi was not a batch of products. Hanfu Supermarket cannot provide complete food purchase inspection records and should bear the burden of proof. Its sale of food beyond the shelf life is prohibited by law. Accordingly, the court of first instance, in accordance with Article 96 of the Food Safety Law, ordered Hanfu Supermarket to refund the payment of 251 yuan, compensate 2510 yuan ten times the payment, and compensate Yin Chongyi 500 yuan for transportation expenses. Hanfu Supermarket appealed on the grounds that the facts found in the original trial and the applicable law were wrong. Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court 2nd-round Moderation held that Hanfu Supermarket’s claim that the goods involved in this case were not sold by it, but it could not provide sufficient evidence to prove it, and it had no objection to the shopping invoice issued by Yin Chongyi, so it did not support its claim. Hanfu Supermarket’s sale of expired food is prohibited by law and should be liable for compensation according to law. The court did not support the claim that it did not deliberately sell expired food and should not be liable for compensation, and the judgment upheld the original judgment.

Liu Xin v. Shaanxi Lixin Pharmacy Sales Contract Dispute

– The operator sells health food with counterfeit other batches, which is the sale of food that is known to be unsafe. Consumers have the right to request a refund of the payment and pay ten times the price for compensation.

(1) Basic case

On October 19, 2012, Liu Xin paid 280 yuan to Shaanxi Lixin Pharmacy (hereinafter referred to as Lixin Pharmacy) to buy 4 boxes of "Fast Slimming and Weight Loss Capsules". The product packaging indicated that the approval number was Weishijianzi (2003) No. 0129. After Liu Xin purchased it, it was unopened and uneaten. After logging on to the website of the State Food and Drug Administration, he found no relevant information on the product. According to the approval number Weishijianzi (2003) No. 0129 indicated on the product packaging, it was found that the name of the health product under this number approved by the Ministry of Health of the People’s Republic of China was: "Qiaomei Brand Weight Loss Capsules". Liu Xin believed that the health food he purchased was not registered with the State Food and Drug Administration and should be an unqualified counterfeit product. Therefore, he sued the People’s Court of Lianhu District, Xi’an City, Shaanxi Province, requesting Lixin Pharmacy to refund 280 yuan and ten times the purchase price of 2,800 yuan.

(2) Referee results

After trial, the court held that the "fast slimming and weight loss capsules" sold by Lixin Pharmacy were health food, and the approval number marked on the food was inconsistent with the product name "Qiaomei brand weight loss capsules" of the same approval number on the website of the State Food and Drug Administration. Lixin Pharmacy also failed to provide supporting documents for the production of the product. Article 5 of the "Health Food Management Measures" stipulates: "All foods claiming to have health care functions must be reviewed and confirmed by the Ministry of Health"; Article 21, Item 5 of the Measures stipulates: "Health food labels and instructions must comply with relevant national standards and requirements, and indicate the health food approval number". The health food "Quick Slimming and Weight Loss Capsules" sold by Lixin Pharmacy is a product with a fraudulent approval number, and its behavior violates the above provisions. Lixin Pharmacy, as a seller, failed to review the relevant approval certificate when purchasing, so that the product entered the circulation link. Its behavior constitutes the second paragraph of Article 96 of the Food Safety Law "Selling food that is knowingly not in line with food safety standards", and should be returned and refunded according to law and paid compensation. The court then ruled that Lixin Pharmacy should refund Liu Xin 280 yuan for the goods and compensate Liu Xin ten times the shopping price of 2,800 yuan. Lixin Pharmacy did not appeal.

III. Wang Xin v. Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd. Online shopping contract dispute

– If the seller sells goods online with price fraud and induces consumers to buy the goods, even if the quality of the goods is qualified, the consumer has the right to request the seller to "refund one to three" and guarantee compensation.

(1) Basic case

On April 8, 2014, Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xiaomi) published an advertisement on its official website showing: 10400mAh mobile power supply, with a special price of 49 yuan for the "Rice Noodles Festival". On the same day, Wang Xin ordered the following two mobile power supplies on the website: Xiaomi Metal Mobile Power 10400mAh silver 69 yuan, Xiaomi Mobile Power 5200mAh silver 39 yuan. After Wang Xin submitted the order, he paid 108 yuan to Xiaomi through Alipay on the same day. On the 12th of the same month, Wang Xin received the above two mobile power supplies and matching data cables. On the 17th of the same month, Wang Xin found that the original data cable using the 5200mAh mobile power supply could not fully charge the mobile phone, so he contacted Xiaomi’s customer service and asked to exchange the data cable. Xiaomi agreed to exchange and has received the data cable. Afterwards, Wang Xin sued the People’s Court of Haidian District, Beijing, on the grounds that Xiaomi had committed price fraud against him, requesting the cancellation of the online shopping contract. Wang Xin returned two sets of mobile power supplies involved in the case to Xiaomi, and requested Xiaomi to: 1. Compensation for Wang Xin 500 yuan; 2. Refund Wang Xin’s purchase price of 108 yuan; 3. Pay Wang Xin’s courier fee of 15 yuan; 4. Compensation for Wang Xin’s transportation, printing, and copying fees of 100 yuan.

(2) Referee results

The court of first instance held that the online shopping contract involved in the case was valid, Xiaomi’s behavior did not constitute fraud, and Wang Xin’s lawsuit request was insufficient, so the judgment rejected his lawsuit request. Wang Xin refused to accept it and appealed to the Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court, claiming that Xiaomi had advertised the original price of 69 yuan a week in advance for the "Rice Noodles Festival" to sell for 49 yuan, deceiving consumers to queue up to buy. The advertisement was still there on the day of sale, but the goods were sold for 69 yuan. Xiaomi set a regular panic buying for online shopping, and the panic buying time was less than 20 minutes, which constituted price fraud. The 2nd-round Moderation Court held that the online shopping contract involved was valid, and consumers had the right to arm’s length transaction and the right to know about the goods. Due to the particularity of Xiaomi’s online panic buying sales method, the advertisement is directly linked to the panic buying interface of the product and consumers need to express their intention to buy in a short period of time. Wang Xin agreed with Xiaomi’s advertising price of 49 yuan, so the price of panic buying on the day of the "Rice Noodles Festival" should be 49 yuan. However, as can be seen from the order details on Xiaomi’s website, Wang Xin placed an order at 14:30 on April 8, 2014, and the price of the 10400mAh mobile power supply in the order was 69 yuan instead of 49 yuan. Xiaomi now acknowledges that there is an error displayed on the activity interface of Xiaomi Mall, and there is an inconsistency between the advertising price and the actual settlement price, but it is interpreted as an error in the computer background system. Since Xiaomi did not make a statement to consumers on the Internet about the error in its background after the fact, and it had no evidence to prove that its computer background failed on the day of the "Rice Noodles Festival", the 2nd-round Moderation Court found that Xiaomi had deliberately defrauded consumers. Wang Xin’s request for fraudulent request to revoke the contract for the 10400mAh mobile power supply was reasonable. For the other power supply, both parties agreed to terminate the contract, and the 2nd-round Moderation Court granted it. Accordingly, the court ruled that Wang Xin returned the above two mobile power supplies to Xiaomi Company according to law, and Xiaomi Company guaranteed compensation to Wang Xin of 500 yuan, refunded Wang Xin’s payment of 108 yuan, and rejected Wang Xin’s other claims.

Four, Li Xiaodong v. Jiuxian.com e-commerce joint stock company online shopping contract dispute case

– The e-commerce company, as a seller, has fraudulent behavior in the process of using other people’s networks to sell goods. After the transaction, it reaches a compensation agreement with the consumer and fails to fulfill it. The consumer has the right to request the seller to bear compensation liability in accordance with the agreement.

(1) Basic case

On August 9, 2012, Li Xiaodong bought 6 bottles of Baijiu sold by Jiuxian.com e-commerce joint stock company (hereinafter referred to as Jiuxian.com) on Taobao. The online product page described it as [Baijiu China Famous Brand 52 Degrees Wuliangye (1618) 500ml Special Price], and the transaction price was 8349 yuan. After the transaction was completed, Li Xiaodong checked the above webpage and found that the Baijiu purchased in Jiuxian.com’s Taobao store won the bidding of the product "special price and original price" equal, so he reported it to the Beijing Price Reporting Center. Afterwards, Li Xiaodong and Jiuxian Company reached a "Understanding Agreement", agreeing that the two parties would complete the return and refund procedures within 5 days after the signing of the agreement. Jiuxian Company compensated Li Xiaodong 8,394 yuan, and if one party breached the contract, it would bear 20% of the total amount of liquidated damages. Because Jiuxian Company failed to fulfill the agreement, Li Xiaodong sued to the People’s Court of Binhai County, Jiangsu Province, requesting Jiuxian Company to compensate 8,394 yuan and bear liquidated damages of 1678.8 yuan.

(2) Referee results

The court under suit held that business operators should follow the principles of voluntary, equal, fair, and good faith when conducting transactions with consumers. In the course of transactions, business operators should provide consumers with true information about the goods and must not make false propaganda. In the course of online transactions in this case, Jiuxian Company misled consumers by selling special goods online. Its behavior constituted fraud and should bear legal responsibility according to law. Li Xiaodong reached an understanding agreement with Jiuxian Company in the process of claiming compensation. Because Jiuxian Company failed to perform its obligations in accordance with the agreement, its behavior constituted a breach of contract and should bear the liability for breach of contract. Therefore, Li Xiaodong’s lawsuit request for Jiuxian Company to perform its compensation obligations in accordance with the agreement complies with the law and should be supported according to law. After being legally summoned by the court of appeal, Jiuxian Company refused to appear in court to participate in the lawsuit without justifiable reasons, which was regarded as giving up its right to defend and should bear the unfavorable legal consequences. The court ordered Jiuxian Company to pay Li Xiaodong 8,394 yuan in compensation and 1,678.8 yuan in liquidated damages, totaling 10,072.8 yuan. Jiuxian Company did not appeal.

V. Yang Bo v. Bayannaoer Hezhong Yuantong Express Co., Ltd. Wulat Qianqi Branch and Fu Yingchun Online Shopping Contract Dispute

– If the goods purchased online by the consumer are falsely claimed by others during the delivery process, and the consumer claims that the seller and the deliveryman jointly bear the liability for compensation, the seller shall bear the liability for compensation according to the principle of relativity of contract.

(1) Basic case

On March 19, 2013, Yang Bo purchased a computer worth 15,123 yuan from Fu Yingchun’s electronic business department in the form of online shopping. After placing the order, the payment and postage of 95 yuan have been paid to Yingchun. On the same day, Fu Yingchun entrusted Wulateqianqi Branch of Bayannaoer Hezhong Yuantong Express Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the courier company) to deliver the goods. The goods arrived at the delivery place on the 24th of the same month and were falsely claimed by others. To this end, Yang Bo repeatedly asked Fu Yingchun to deliver the goods unsuccessfully, and then sued the People’s Court of Wulateqianqi, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, requesting that the courier company and Fu Yingchun compensate 15,123 yuan for the computer payment and 95 yuan for the postage.

(2) Referee results

The court held that Yang Bo purchased goods from Fu Yingchun in the form of online shopping, and paid the payment and postage to Fu Yingchun. Fu Yingchun, as the shipper, entrusted the courier company to deliver the goods to Yang Bo, forming the online shopping contract relationship and the transportation contract relationship respectively. From the perspective of the respective rights and obligations of the parties, in the online shopping contract, Yang Bo has paid the payment and postage through online banking, fulfilled the consumer’s payment obligation, and Fu Yingchun, as the seller, has the obligation to deliver the goods to Yang Bo according to the contract. Although Fu Yingchun has handed over the goods to the courier company for shipment, during the transportation process, the courier company’s staff handed over the goods to others for receipt without verifying the identity information of the other party during delivery. The seller Fu Yingchun has not completed the delivery obligation of the goods, which constitutes a breach of contract. Therefore, Yang Bo’s request for Fu Yingchun to compensate 15,123 yuan for the paid computer payment and 95 yuan for postage should be supported. According to the principle of relativity of the contract, the contract only binds the parties to the contract. The courier company’s wrong delivery of the goods to others belongs to the transportation relationship between Fu Yingchun and the courier company. The courier company should not be liable for compensation in this case, so Yang Bo’s request that the courier company should be liable for compensation is not supported. The court ordered Yingchun to compensate Yang Bo 15,123 yuan for the computer payment and 95 yuan for the postage. None of the parties appealed.

Fan Jianwu v. Guangdong Provincial Cultural Relics General Store over a dispute over a sales contract

– The seller sells the ordinary pomegranate jade bracelet as a jadeite bracelet, which constitutes a fraud to the consumer. The consumer has the right to request a return to the seller, and the seller refunds the money to the consumer and pays three times the price compensation.

(1) Basic case

On April 17, 2014, Fan Jianwu bought a bracelet at the Guangdong Provincial Cultural Relics General Store (hereinafter referred to as the Cultural Relics General Store) for 17,100 yuan. The store issued an invoice to him. The invoice stated that the goods were "yqgda-0765 jade bracelet" and the amount was 17,100 yuan. On the 24th of the same month, Fan Jianwu went to the store again to ask for a replacement invoice. The store then withdrew the original invoice and issued a new invoice for Fan Jianwu. The invoice stated that the goods were "yqgda-0765 jadeite bracelet". The purchased bracelet was identified as "water calcium aluminous garnet bracelet" by the Guangdong Provincial Institute of Geological Sciences. Later, at the request of the store, the parties jointly entrusted the Guangdong Provincial Jewelry, Jade and Precious Metals Testing Center to re-identify the bracelet, and the appraisal result was "garnet jade bracelet". Fan Jianwu believed that the Cultural Relics General Store sold ordinary garnet bracelets as jadeite bracelets as fake ones, which constituted fraud. Therefore, he sued the People’s Court of Yuexiu District, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, requesting the Cultural Relics General Store to refund him 17,100 yuan and compensate him 51,300 yuan according to law.

(2) Referee results

After trial, the court of first instance held that the sales invoice issued by the Cultural Heritage Store to Fan Jianwu showed that it was a "jadeite bracelet", but it was identified as a "garnet jade bracelet". Although the store argued that it changed the first invoice item "jade bracelet" to "jadeite bracelet" after repeated pleas by Fan Jianwu, from the audio recording evidence provided by Fan Jianwu, the store claimed that the bracelet it sold to Fan Jianwu was made of jadeite, and clearly informed Fan Jianwu that the jade bracelet purchased was made of jadeite. As the operator of the store, the "garnet jade bracelet" was sold to Fan Jianwu as a "jadeite bracelet", which was fake and could be identified as a fraudulent consumer. In accordance with Article 55 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, the court of first instance ruled that Fan Jianwu returned the bracelet purchased to the main cultural relics store, and the store refunded Fan Jianwu 17,100 yuan for the goods; the main cultural relics store compensated Fan Jianwu 51,300 yuan for three times the price of the bracelet. The Cultural Relics General Store refused to accept it and appealed on the grounds that the facts found in the original trial and the application of law were wrong. The Intermediate People’s Court of Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, 2nd-round Moderation held that according to the invoice issued by the Cultural Relics General Store and the recording of the conversation provided by Fan Jianwu, it has been fully confirmed that the "jadeite bracelet" it sold to Fan Jianwu has been determined to be a "garnet jade bracelet" after being jointly commissioned by both parties. There is a significant difference in the quality of the goods claimed by the Cultural Relics General Store during the sales process. Therefore, the original court found that its behavior constituted fraud and was not improper. The Cultural Relics General Store argued that its behavior did not constitute fraud on the grounds that the bracelet in dispute had cultural relic value, and Fan Jianwu did not suffer losses, and the reasons were not established. Accordingly, the court upheld the original judgment.

VII. Yu Aoyong v. Bi Liping Product Seller Liability Dispute

– The operator falsely advertises its health care products and induces consumers to buy them, which constitutes commercial fraud. Consumers have the right to ask the operator to refund the payment and pay three times the compensation.

(1) Basic case

On April 16, 2014, Yu Aoyong purchased two sets of Shuangning brand functional health mattresses at the price of 14,100 yuan in Bi Liping, with a specification of 2 meters × 1.5 meters × 0.12 meters. After use, the mattress did not have the functions of preventing cancer, inhibiting cancer cell growth, treating diseases and preventing diseases as advertised by Bi Liping. To this end, Yu Aoyong sued the People’s Court of Weihai Torch High-tech Industrial Development Zone in Shandong Province, claiming that Bi Liping’s behavior constituted fraud, and requested that Bi Liping be ordered to refund the payment of 28,200 yuan and compensate him 84,600 yuan three times the purchase price.

(2) Referee results

After hearing, the court held that Bi Liping recognized the facts claimed by Yu Aoyong, and his behavior constituted commercial fraud, and admitted that he should return the money and pay three times the compensation as requested by the plaintiff. In accordance with Article 55 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, the court ruled that Bi Liping returned 28,200 yuan for the goods in Aoyong and compensated 84,600 yuan for three times the price of the goods purchased by Aoyong. Bi Liping did not appeal.

Eight, Wang v. Beijing Yiluyou Baby Products Co., Ltd. Service Contract Dispute

– – During the consumption process of using the prepaid card, the consumer card cannot be used because the operator is not operating at the original address, and he has the right to request to cancel the contract and refund the balance of the prepaid card.

(1) Basic case

On September 3, 2013, the baby Wang experienced a swim at Beijing Yilu Tour Baby Products Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yilu Tour Company), and his mother paid the Yilu Tour Company a deposit of 100 yuan for the swimming card. On the 5th of the same month, his mother paid the Yilu Tour Company the balance of 2498 yuan for 40 swimming cards (the period is from September 5, 2013 to September 5, 2014). After applying for the card, Wang swam once, but there was no crying phenomenon. During the third and fourth swims, Yilu Tour Company no longer operates at the original address, and Wang’s swimming card can no longer be used. Wang on the grounds that the services provided by Yilu Tour Company did not meet the contract agreement and Wang could not achieve the purpose of the contract, he requested to terminate the contract with Yilu Tour Company and refund the remaining money, but was rejected, and then sued the People’s Court of Fengtai District, Beijing, requesting Yilu Tour Company to return its deposit of 100 yuan and the balance of the swimming card 2387.55 yuan.

(2) Referee results

The court of first instance held that the service contract signed orally between Wang and Yilu Tour Company was valid. The business scope, address and invoice issues of Yilu Tour Company that Wang complained about were irrelevant to the purpose of the contract; the alleged violation of relevant management regulations and the services provided by Yilu Tour Company did not conform to the agreement, and the evidence was insufficient to prove that the purpose of the contract could not be achieved and the actions of Yilu Tour Company had a causal relationship, so the judgment rejected Wang’s lawsuit. Wang appealed that Yilu Tour Company had breached the contract and the contract should be cancelled. The 2nd-round Moderation of the Second Intermediate People’s Court of Beijing held that during the 2nd-round Moderation of this case, Yilu Tour Company failed to appear in court to respond to the lawsuit after being legally summoned, nor did it operate in its place of business and registration, so that the swimming card purchased by Wang could not continue to be used, and the contract could no longer be performed in fact. Wang’s appeal claim for termination of the contract is in line with the circumstances of termination of the contract stipulated in Article 93 of the Contract Law. Accordingly, the court ruled: revoke the judgment of first instance, terminate the service contract between Wang and Yilu Tour Company, and Yilu Tour Company returns Wang’s swimming card fee of 2262.65 yuan and deposit of 100 yuan.

Nine, Wu Junmei v. Zhejiang Pingyun Commercial Trading Co., Ltd. Dispute over sales contract

– The seller installs the air conditioner he sells according to the contract. During the installation process, due to safety hazards that occur inadvertently and cause losses to consumers, he shall bear corresponding compensation liabilities.

(1) Basic case

On April 30, 2008, Wu Junmei purchased a big gold medal air conditioner from Zhejiang Shuangyun Commercial Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Shuangshi Company), with a total price of 8,051 yuan. The company issued an installation order to Wu Junmei, and sent someone to install an air conditioner at Wu Junmei’s home on May 11, 2008. In August 2013, the floor and wall of Wu Junmei’s living room and adjacent rooms were eroded by water. After inspection by the after-sales staff of Dajin Air Conditioning, it was confirmed that the wall hole where the drain pipe of the air conditioner passed through was not blocked, and the drain pipe at the hole where the mouse bit the wall hole leaked. Wu Junmei repaired the damaged floor, wall and related areas, and the repair cost was not compensated. Wu Junmei then sued the People’s Court of Xiaoshan District, Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, requesting that the company be ordered to compensate 14,104 yuan for its losses and pay 10,000 yuan for mental damage.

(2) Referee results

The court heard that the sales contract relationship between Wu Junmei and Ning Company was established and legal and valid. The air conditioner is a kind of refrigeration equipment with high installation specifications. As the seller, Ning Company should not only provide machinery and equipment that meet the quality requirements, but also provide installation services that meet the requirements of the specifications. Whether the air conditioner purchased by Wu Junmei was actually installed by the manufacturer or by the seller, it cannot be excluded that the seller, as the counterparty to the contract, has the obligation to ensure that the air conditioner is in normal use and does not cause damage to personal property. The company failed to exercise reasonable care and failed to ensure that the wall hole through which the air conditioner drain pipe passes is blocked, so that mice can enter the wall hole and bite off the drain pipe, causing water leakage and causing damage to the walls and floors of the house. There was a causal relationship between his failure to properly perform his contractual obligations and the damage results, and he was responsible for the losses suffered by Wu Junmei. As a consumer, Wu Junmei asked the company to compensate for the cost of repairing the floor and wall, and the court supported it. The missed work fee and mental damage consolation money claimed by Wu Junmei lacked basis, and the court did not support it. The court ruled that the company should compensate Wu Junmei for the actual repair cost of 12,175 yuan. The company did not appeal.

X. Wang Yi v. Tianjin Zhongjin Peixian Automotive Service Co., Ltd. Dispute over the sale contract

– The operator sells the recalled car, which constitutes commercial fraud. Consumers have the right to request the refund of the purchased car, and the operator will refund the purchase price and compensate double the purchase price.

(1) Basic case

On September 28, 2013, Wang Yi purchased a small off-road bus of Outlander JE3A2693 from Tianjin Zhongjin Pei Xian Automobile Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhongjin Automobile Company) at a price of 249,800 yuan. Zhongjin Automobile Company paid 22,700 yuan for vehicle purchase tax, 225 yuan for vehicle and vessel tax, 1,100 yuan for compulsory motor vehicle traffic accident insurance, and 10,752 yuan for comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, totaling 34,777 yuan. A license fee of 900 yuan was charged. On October 15, 2013, Zhongjin Automobile Company delivered the vehicle to Wang Yi. On February 7, 2014, Zhongjin Automobile Company informed Wang Yi that the vehicle should be recalled. On June 4, 2013, Mitsubishi Motors Sales (China) Co., Ltd. issued a recall notice for some imported Outlander vehicles. The recall period is from June 5, 2013 to June 4, 2014. The scope of the recalled vehicles includes the vehicles purchased by Wang Yi. The defect is caused by the supplier’s manufacturing reasons, resulting in the failure of the components that monitor the internal microcomputer power supply of the electric power steering cgroup parts. There may be consequences such as wrong start of the power monitoring circuit, and there are potential safety hazards. The maintenance measures are to replace the electric power steering cgroup parts (EPS-ECU). Wang Yi then sued the People’s Court of Tianjin Binhai New Area, requesting the return of the car. Zhongjin Automobile Company returned the purchase price of 285,477 yuan and tripled the compensation of 749,400 yuan.

(2) Referee results

The court of first instance held that in this case, the producer had informed the public of the fact that some imported Outlander cars had product defects that should be recalled and the scope of the recall by means of a media announcement. Therefore, the fact that the vehicles in dispute belonged to the vehicles that should be recalled was a matter that had been informed to the public, and there was no concealment. In addition, according to the recall announcement issued by the producer, the defects of the vehicles in dispute could be eliminated by replacing the electric power steering cgroup unit (EPS-ECU) with an improved process, and afterward, Zhongjin Automobile Company took the initiative to inform Wang Yi that the defects of the vehicles in dispute had not been eliminated and that components needed to be replaced, so Zhongjin Automobile Company did not have the intention to conceal this. In summary, Zhongjin Automobile Company’s behavior did not constitute fraud, so the judgment rejected Wang Yi’s lawsuit. Wang Yi appealed on the grounds that the facts of the original judgment were unclear and the application of law was wrong. 2nd-round Moderation of Tianjin Second Intermediate People’s Court held that Zhongjin Automobile Company, as an operator, should know whether the vehicle was within the scope of the recall, and its defense could not be established because it was unaware of the recall of the vehicle involved. Zhongjin Automobile Company concealed the defects of the vehicle and sold it, which constituted commercial fraud. The vehicle sales in this case took place before the amendment of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, so Zhongjin Automobile Company should bear the legal responsibility of "one refund and one compensation". The court’s 2nd-round Moderation judgment: Revoking the first-instance judgment in this case, Wang Yi returned the car to Zhongjin Automobile Company, Zhongjin Automobile Company refunded Wang Yi 249,800 yuan for the purchase of the car, doubled the compensation to Wang Yi 249,800 yuan, and compensated Wang Yi for vehicle purchase tax, etc. A total of 35,677 yuan.