Brief of a case: Business contract dispute
Consumer A fine horse and company of carry out car gallop the company signs a contract, bought a Martha of more than 1000000 yuan car of a person of extraordinary powers to pull the base of a fruit. The car makes sure a carry out car is brand-new all right former outfit, quality standards is nonexistent any problems. Car flaw discovers after A Jun buys a car, after bargaining know place buys car to once produced an accident to be maintained, and insurance company already compensation of be or get out of danger. A Jun goes with the car con for, will gallop the company appeals to to the court.
Details of a case is answered put
October 2017, a Jun and gallop the company signs a car to sell a contract, bought a Martha to haul car of the base of a fruit, the price is 1.07 million yuan. Gallop this car is company commitment brand-new former outfit car, each index accords with car completely outgoing quality norms, car quality examines with Chinese import and export merchandise issued entrance motor vehicle follows quarantine bureau car checklist is accurate. With day, a Jun to gallop company sum paid 1.07 million yuan to buy vehicle fund. After making a car, a Jun was handed in for this car capture purchase danger of duty, car boat duty, car to add up to more than yuan 130 thousand.
After shifting a car, a Jun discovers car forehead and chromatism of automobile body existence, in with gallop the accused after company bargaining knows this car to once had produced collision accident, passed maintenance. Later, a Jun with gallopping the company is suspected of con for, accuse its to the court, the request adjudicates what cancel both sides signs a contract, gallop the company returns his loss of the money that buy a car and 1.07 million accrual, compensatory car place pays tax payment, press purchase car cost 3 times pay compensation 3.21 million yuan.
Court of people of the division in Xiamen city lake is found out, bring a case to court contends for car to transferred China from Italy in December 2013. June 2016, this car is damaged after body of wall of inadvertent when new car routine detects collision, the bar before undertaking changing, medium net, prevent bump into the maintenance such as assembly of shock absorber, ventiduct, cost 26 thousand yuan in all. Insurance company already sum to gallop the company undertook manage compensate.
A Jun supported after cognizance of court of the district in the lake appeal to beg, gallop the company refuses to obey, mention to Xiamen quadrangle appeal.
Spot of front courtyard careful
In front courtyard careful, a Jun and gallop company respective agent around gallop whether was the company fulfilled to A Jun tell the compulsory, know the inside story that whether encroachs A Jun authority and this case is applicable " rights and interests of consumer of People's Republic of China protects a law " (next laws weighing disappear) fiftieth 5 regulation, spread out intense contention.
Gallop company: Repair rate is only 1.887% , do not belong to inform limits.
"Gallop Xiang Ajun fulfilled the standard technological process that the salesperson of the company carries standardization to tell obligation, and bring a case to court contends for car to depreciate from 1.398 million yuan 1.07 million yuan, reason A fine horse has known or ought to have known bring a case to court to contend for car to pass the fact of maintenance. " gallop square argue says.
"The trade that according to Chinese car current association releases is used to -- " serve by the examination before with the car new car makes work how-to (try out) " the 8.2.2nd regulation, this case bring a case to court contends for car repair rate to be only 1.887% , do not belong to inform limits, reason gallops the know the inside story that did not encroach A Jun counterpoises. Reason gallops the know the inside story that did not encroach A Jun counterpoises..
Gallop company firm say, its behavior does not have the subjective ill will that conceals intentionally, its behavior is not formed con. Operator provider is tasted or the service has disappear way fiftieth of 6 regulations fake formulary fraudulent action, ability is applicable disappear law is fiftieth of 5 regulations " 3 times compensation " , gallop in this case the behavior of the company does not accord with the Fujian Province to implement law of disappear deal with according to law fiftieth one of 13 kinds of of 8 regulations fraudulent action, this case not law of should applicable disappear is fiftieth of 5 regulations " 3 times compensation " . Reason asks 2 careful court lawfully change the original sentence.
A Jun: Authority of know the inside story is encroached, car travel behavior is formed con.
Agent of A fine horse emphasizes: "Gallop when sale bring a case to court contends for car not only inform car to because produce collision job,once had undertaken so without Xiang Ajun it is maintenance, important to change the fact of the component, make sure case experience car is clearly in selling a contract still brand-new former outfit car, the know the inside story that encroached A Jun counterpoises, its behavior is formed con. Its behavior is formed con..
A Jun just thinks, disappear law is fiftieth 5 make clear the circumstance with this applicable clause is " operator provider is tasted or the service has fraudulent action " , gallop company position is tasted when operator provider only or the service has disappear way fiftieth of 6 regulations fake etc fraudulent action ability is applicable fiftieth 5 3 times compensation, without legal basis. And law of deal with according to law of Fujian Province executive disappear is fiftieth 8 regulation is belonged to list type, be not end all circumstances, this set 13 kinds of fraudulent action not only, still have article of the 14th reveal all the details " other and fraudulent action " . Accordingly, gallop the company must be compensated for.
Court: Gallop the company is formed con
Judicial controversy phase, the presiding judge is end of this case controversy focus: Gallop the know the inside story that whether the company encroachs A Jun counterpoises and form con, this case whether to answer applicable disappear law is fiftieth 5 regulation.
The court thinks, the cognitive ability from consumer and manage of disappear give a lot of care set out, "New car " those who point to is brand-new, use without passing, the car that maintains without passing, the car that passes collision, maintenance is not the new car that consumer thinks, the information of collision of friend car course, maintenance meets those who affect customer buy an option apparently. Gallop below the circumstance that the company regards operator as to sell new car in acceptance, behoove contends for bring a case to court clear and specificly car to had told customer through the fact of collision, maintenance, but its did not inform A Jun however in process of carry out car, brought about its to buy this car below unwitting circumstance, its behavior is formed con. This car already belonged to new car of accident car and rather than when trade, overhaul of the routine before new car makes work and accident car maintenance have substaintial distinction, because this gallops of company quote " serve by the examination before with the car new car makes work how-to (try out) " cannot applicable this case.
Disappear law is fiftieth 5 with fiftieth 6 clauses that are independence, part applicable and different situation, gallop company argue says to have only fiftieth of 6 regulations fake etc fraudulent action ability is applicable fiftieth of 5 regulations " 3 times compensation " , lack legal basis, do not grant to collect a letter.
Law of deal with according to law of Fujian Province executive disappear is fiftieth 13 kinds of circumstances of 8 regulations are belonged to list, still included the 14th " other and fraudulent action " , gallop company position cannot hold water, do not grant to collect a letter.
Accrual loss, car purchases loss of tax loss, car boat tax, insurance premium loss to because bring a case to court contends for the loss that trade and produces actually,belong to A Jun, should grant to compensate for lawfully.
Accordingly, the court enters a judgement: Maintain first instance to adjudicate, cancel bring a case to court contends for a contract, gallop the company is returned to A Jun still buy vehicle fund 1.07 million yuan reach accrual loss, car to purchase tax loss 103 thousand yuan, loss of car boat tax reachs insurance premium loss 1500 yuan 34 thousand yuan, pay the 3 times compensation of the money that buy a car 3.21 million yuan to A Jun.
Turn from the city date of public of Sino-French aid small letter
Group of new media of Guangxi tall courtyard makes
Everybody is looking
Your contribute, opinion and proposal, send here please: Gxgywx@163.com.
If like, nod please left the thumb below.
