catalogue

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

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

3. Wang Xin v. Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd. Online Shopping Contract Dispute Case

4. Li Xiaodong v. Jiuxian.com E-commerce Co., Ltd. Online Purchase Contract Dispute Case

5. Yang Bo v. Bayannur City Hezhong Yuantong Express Co., Ltd. Ulat Front Banner Branch and Fu Yingchun Online Shopping Contract Dispute Case

6. Fan Jianwu v. Guangdong Provincial Cultural Relics Headquarters Sales Contract Dispute Case

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

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

9. Wu Junmei v. Zhejiang Suning Yunshang Trading Co., Ltd. Sales Contract Dispute Case

10. Wang Yi v. Tianjin Zhongjin Peixian Automobile Service Co., Ltd. Sales Contract Dispute Case

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

——Selling expired food by an operator is an act of knowingly selling food that is unsafe. Consumers have the right to request a refund of the purchase price and pay ten times the price as compensation.

（1） Basic facts of the case

On June 17, 2013, Yin Chongyi paid 251 yuan to Hanyang Branch of Wuhan Hanfu Supermarket Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hanfu Supermarket) to buy a box of Taohuaji ass hide glue cake. The production date on the food packaging was August 7, 2012, and the warranty period was 10 months. After purchasing, Yin Chongyi discovered that the food had passed its shelf life and requested a return from the supermarket without any results. He then filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Hanyang District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province, requesting Hanfu Supermarket to refund the payment of 251 yuan, ten times the compensation of 2510 yuan, pay transportation fees of 3000 yuan, and mental comfort money of 3000 yuan.

（2） Judgment results

The first instance court held that the shopping invoice provided by Yin Chongyi can confirm the establishment of a sales contract relationship with Hanfu Supermarket. The determination of whether the Taohua Ji'a Jiaogao, which Yin Chongyi now holds and on which to file a lawsuit, is the commodity sold by Hanfu Supermarket at that time. Firstly, Yin Chongyi provided physical goods and shopping invoices, fulfilling the burden of proof to prove the consumer's shopping. Yin Chongyi reported the situation to Hanfu Supermarket on the day of purchase and requested a return. However, both parties failed to negotiate and appealed to the Hanyang Branch of Wuhan Administration for Industry and Commerce on the same day. Yin Chongyi promptly reported product quality issues. Although Hanfu Supermarket argued that the expired Taohua Ji'a Jiaogao that Yin Chongyi requested to return was not provided by Hanfu Supermarket, it did not submit evidence of purchase in the same period to the court to prove that it was not sold by Hanfu Supermarket, and it was not the same batch of products as the Taohua Ji'a Jiaogao provided by Yin Chongyi. Hanfu Supermarket cannot provide complete food purchase inspection records and should bear the responsibility of providing evidence. The sale of food beyond its shelf life is prohibited by law. According to Article 96 of the Food Safety Law, the first instance court ruled that Hanfu Supermarket would refund the payment of 251 yuan, compensate ten times the payment of 2510 yuan, and compensate Yin Chongyi with 500 yuan for transportation expenses. Hanfu Supermarket filed an appeal on the grounds that the facts and applicable laws were found to be incorrect in the original trial. The Wuhan Intermediate People's Court held in the second instance that Hanfu Supermarket claimed that the goods involved in this case were not sold by it, but could not provide sufficient evidence to prove it. Moreover, it had no objection to the shopping invoice issued by Yin Chongyi, so it did not support its claim. Hanfu Supermarket is prohibited by law from selling expired food and should be liable for compensation in accordance with the law. The court did not support its claim that it did not intentionally sell expired food and should not be liable for compensation, and the judgment upheld the original judgment.

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

——If the operator sells counterfeit health food with other batch numbers, it belongs to the sale of food that is knowingly unsafe. Consumers have the right to request a refund of the purchase price and pay compensation ten times the price.

（1） Basic facts of the case

On October 19, 2012, Liu Xin paid 280 yuan to Shaanxi Lixin Pharmacy (hereinafter referred to as Lixin Pharmacy) to purchase 4 boxes of "Quick slimming and weight loss capsules". The product packaging was marked with approval number Wei Shi Jian Zi (2003) No. 0129. Liu Xin did not unpack or consume after purchasing. After logging into the website of the National Food and Drug Administration, no relevant information about the product was found. According to the approval number Wei Shi Jian Zi (2003) No. 0129 indicated on the product packaging, it was found that the health product name approved by the Ministry of Health of the People's Republic of China under this number is "Qiao Mei Brand Weight Loss Capsule". Liu Xin believes that the health food he purchased has not been 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 the purchase price of 280 yuan and compensate ten times the purchase price of 2800 yuan.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the sued court found that the "Quick slimming and weight loss capsules" sold by Lixin Pharmacy belong to health food. The approval number "Shi Wei Jian Zi (2003) No. 0129" marked on the food is inconsistent with the product name "Qiao Mei Brand Weight Loss Capsules" in the same approval number on the website of the National Food and Drug Administration. Lixin Pharmacy also failed to provide relevant proof of production permission for the product. Article 5 of the "Health Food Management Measures" stipulates that "any food claiming to have health functions must be reviewed and confirmed by the Ministry of Health"; The fifth item of Article 21 of the Measures stipulates that "the labels and instructions of health food must comply with relevant national standards and requirements, and indicate the approval number of health food". The health food "Quick Weight Loss Capsule" sold by Lixin Pharmacy is a product that falsely uses an approval number, which violates the above regulations. As a seller, Lixin Pharmacy did not review the relevant approval certificate when purchasing, causing the product to enter the circulation process. Its behavior constitutes Article 96 (2) of the Food Safety Law, which states that "selling food that knowingly does not meet food safety standards", and should be returned, refunded, and compensated in accordance with the law. The court subsequently ordered Lixin Pharmacy to refund Liu Xin the payment of 280 yuan and compensate Liu Xin ten times the purchase price of 2800 yuan. Lixin Pharmacy did not appeal.

3、 Wang Xin v. Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd. Online Shopping Contract Dispute Case

——If a seller engages in price fraud when selling goods online, inducing consumers to purchase the goods, even if the quality of the goods is qualified, consumers have the right to request the seller to "refund one, compensate three" and guarantee minimum compensation.

（1） Basic facts of the case

On April 8, 2014, Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Xiaomi Company") published an advertisement on its official website, which showed that 10400mAh mobile power supply was at a special price of 49 yuan for the "Rice noodles Festival". On that day, Wang Xin ordered the following two mobile power supplies on the website: Xiaomi Metal Mobile Power 10400mAh Silver 69 yuan, and Xiaomi Mobile Power 5200mAh Silver 39 yuan. After submitting the order, Wang Xin paid 108 yuan to Xiaomi via Alipay on the same day. On the 12th of the same month, Wang Xin received the two mobile power supplies and supporting data cables mentioned above. On the 17th of the same month, Wang Xin discovered that the original data cable using a 5200mAh mobile power supply could not fully charge the phone. Therefore, he contacted Xiaomi's customer service to request a replacement of the data cable. Xiaomi Company agrees to exchange and has received the data cable. Afterwards, Wang Xin sued the Haidian District People's Court of Beijing for price fraud committed by Xiaomi Company, requesting the revocation of the online shopping contract. Wang Xin returned two sets of mobile power supplies involved in the case to Xiaomi Company, and requested that Xiaomi Company: 1. compensate Wang Xin with 500 yuan; 2. Refund Wang Xin's purchase price of 108 yuan; 3. Pay Wang Xin a courier fee of 15 yuan; 4. Compensate Wang Xin for 100 yuan in transportation, printing, and photocopying fees.

（2） Judgment results

The first instance court held that the online shopping contract involved in the case was valid, and Xiaomi's actions did not constitute fraud. Wang Xin's litigation claim lacked sufficient evidence, so the court ruled to dismiss his litigation claim. Wang Xin objected and appealed to the First Intermediate People's Court of Beijing. He said that Xiaomi Company had advertised for 49 yuan for the Rice noodles Festival, a power supply, at the original price of 69 yuan a week in advance, to deceive consumers into queuing for rush buying. The advertising was still there on the day of sale, but the goods were sold for 69 yuan. Xiaomi Company set a regular rush buying for online shopping, which lasted less than 20 minutes. Its behavior constituted price fraud. The second instance court held that the online shopping contract involved in the case is valid, and consumers have the right to fair trading and the right to know about the goods. Due to the unique nature of Xiaomi's online flash sale sales method, the advertisement is directly linked to the product's flash sale interface and consumers need to make a purchase intention in a short period of time. Wang Xin agreed that the advertising price of Xiaomi Company was 49 yuan, so he made a statement of intention to rush to buy on the "Rice noodles Festival" day. His real intention expressed that the price should be 49 yuan. However, according to the order details on Xiaomi website, Wang Xin placed an order at 14:30 on April 8, 2014, and the price of 10400mAh mobile power supply in the order was 69 yuan instead of 49 yuan. Xiaomi Company now acknowledges that there is an error in the display of the Xiaomi Mall activity interface, and there is a discrepancy between the advertising price and the actual settlement price. However, the explanation is that there is an error in the computer backend system. Since Xiaomi Company did not make a statement to consumers on the Internet about its background errors afterwards, and it had no evidence to prove that its computer background failed on the day of the "Rice noodles Festival", the court of second instance found that Xiaomi Company intended to defraud consumers. Wang Xin's request for cancellation of the contract due to fraud in 10400mAh mobile power supply was reasonable, and the court of second instance allowed both parties to the other power supply to agree to terminate the contract. Based on this, the court ruled in accordance with the law that Wang Xin would return the two mobile power supplies mentioned above to Xiaomi Company. Xiaomi Company would provide a minimum compensation of 500 yuan to Wang Xin, refund Wang Xin the payment of 108 yuan, and reject Wang Xin's other litigation claims.

4、 Li Xiaodong v. Jiuxian.com E-commerce Co., Ltd. Online Purchase Contract Dispute Case

——E-commerce, as a seller, engages in fraudulent behavior during the process of using others' networks to sell goods. If a compensation agreement is reached with consumers after the transaction but is not fulfilled, consumers have the right to request the seller to bear compensation liability in accordance with the agreement.

（1） Basic facts of the case

On August 9, 2012, Li Xiaodong purchased six bottles of Baijiu sold by Jiuxian.com E-commerce Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jiuxian.com) on Taobao.com. The online commodity page described Baijiu as a Chinese famous brand, Wuliangye (1618) 500ml special price, with a transaction price of 8349 yuan. After the completion of the transaction, Li Xiaodong inquired the above web page and found that the "special price" and "original price" of the Baijiu he bought in the Taobao shop of Jiuxian Company were equal, so he reported to the Beijing Price Reporting Center. Afterwards, Li Xiaodong and Jiuxian Company reached a "Memorandum of Understanding", agreeing that both parties should complete the return and refund procedures within 5 days after the agreement is signed. Jiuxian Company will compensate Li Xiaodong with 8394 yuan, and if one party breaches the contract, they will bear a penalty of 20% of the total amount. Due to the failure of Jiuxian Company to fulfill the agreement, Li Xiaodong filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Binhai County, Jiangsu Province, requesting Jiuxian Company to compensate 8394 yuan and bear a penalty of 1678.8 yuan.

（2） Judgment results

The sued court believes that when conducting transactions between operators and consumers, they should follow the principles of voluntariness, equality, fairness, honesty and credibility. During the transaction process, operators should provide consumers with true information about the goods and shall not make false advertising. In the online transaction process of this case, Jiuxian Company misled consumers by selling discounted products online, which constitutes fraud and should bear legal responsibility in accordance with the law. During the process of requesting compensation, Li Xiaodong reached an understanding agreement with Jiuxian Company. Due to Jiuxian Company's failure to fulfill its obligations as stipulated in the agreement, its behavior has constituted a breach of contract and should be held liable for breach of contract. Therefore, Li Xiaodong's request for Jiuxian Company to fulfill its compensation obligations in accordance with the agreement is in compliance with legal provisions and should be supported in accordance with the law. If Jiuxian Company refuses to appear in court without justifiable reasons and is lawfully summoned by the court to participate in the lawsuit, it shall be deemed to have waived its right to defense and shall bear the adverse legal consequences against it. The sued court ruled that Jiuxian Company should pay Li Xiaodong compensation of 8394 yuan and bear a penalty of 1678.8 yuan, totaling 10072.8 yuan. Jiuxian Company did not appeal.

5、 Yang Bo v. Bayannur City Hezhong Yuantong Express Co., Ltd. Ulat Front Banner Branch and Fu Yingchun Online Shopping Contract Dispute Case

——If the goods purchased online by consumers are falsely claimed by others during the delivery process, and consumers claim that the seller and the delivery party jointly bear the liability for compensation, according to the principle of contract relativity, the seller should bear the liability for compensation.

（1） Basic facts of the case

On March 19, 2013, Yang Bo purchased a computer worth 15123 yuan from the electronic business department established by Fu Yingchun through online shopping. After placing the order, the payment and mailing fee of 95 yuan were fully paid to Yingchun. On the same day, Fu Yingchun entrusted Bayannur City Hezhong Yuantong Express Co., Ltd. Ulat Front Banner Branch (hereinafter referred to as the express company) to deliver the goods. The goods arrived at the delivery location on the 24th of the same month and were falsely claimed by someone else. For this reason, Yang Bo repeatedly requested to pay Yingchun for delivery, but failed. He then filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Wulatqian Banner, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, requesting that the express delivery company and pay Yingchun compensation for their computer payment of 15123 yuan and mailing fee of 95 yuan.

（2） Judgment results

The sued court held that Yang Bo purchased the goods from Fu Yingchun through online shopping and paid the payment and mailing fee to Fu Yingchun. Fu Yingchun, as the shipper, entrusted the courier company to deliver the goods to Yang Bo, forming an online shopping contract relationship and a transportation contract relationship, respectively. From the perspective of the respective rights and obligations of the parties involved, in the online shopping contract, Yang Bo had already paid the payment and mailing fees through online banking, fulfilling the payment obligations of the consumer. Fu Yingchun, as the seller, had the obligation to deliver 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 did not verify the identity information of the other party before handing over the goods to others for signature. The seller, Fu Yingchun, has not yet fulfilled the obligation to deliver the goods, which constitutes a breach of contract. Therefore, Yang Bo's request to pay Yingchun compensation for the paid computer fee of 15123 yuan and the mailing fee of 95 yuan should be supported. According to the principle of relativity of the contract, the contract only binds the contracting parties. If the courier company hands over the goods to someone else by mistake, it belongs to the transportation relationship between Fu Yingchun and the courier company. The express delivery company should not be liable for compensation in this case, so we do not support Yang Bo's request that the express delivery company should be liable for compensation. The sued court ruled to pay Yingchun compensation of 15123 yuan for the computer payment and 95 yuan for the mailing fee that Yang Bo had already paid. Neither party appealed.

6、 Fan Jianwu v. Guangdong Provincial Cultural Relics Headquarters Sales Contract Dispute Case

——The seller sells ordinary pomegranate jade bracelets as jade bracelets, which constitutes fraud against the consumer. The consumer has the right to request a return from the seller, and the seller refunds the payment to the consumer and pays three times the price as compensation.

（1） Basic facts of the case

On April 17, 2014, Fan Jianwu purchased a bracelet at Guangdong Provincial Cultural Relics Store (hereinafter referred to as Cultural Relics Store) for 17100 yuan. The store issued an invoice to him, stating that the product was "yqgda-0765 Jade Bracelet", with an amount of 17100 yuan. On the 24th of the same month, Fan Jianwu went to the store again to request a replacement invoice. The store then withdrew the original invoice and issued a new one for Fan Jianwu. The invoice stated the product as "yqgda-0765 Jade Bracelet". The purchased bracelet has been identified by the Guangdong Institute of Geological Sciences as a "water calcium aluminum garnet bracelet". At the request of the store, both parties jointly entrusted the Guangdong Provincial Jewelry, Jade, and Precious Metal Testing Center to re evaluate the bracelet, and the appraisal result was "pomegranate jade bracelet". Fan Jianwu believed that the cultural relics headquarters had sold ordinary garnet bracelets as jade bracelets, passing them off as genuine, which constituted fraud. Therefore, he sued the People's Court of Yuexiu District, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, requesting the cultural relics headquarters to refund him 17100 yuan and compensate him 51300 yuan in accordance with the law.

（2） Judgment results

The first instance court held that the sales invoice issued by the cultural relics headquarters to Fan Jianwu showed "jade bracelet", but it was identified as "pomegranate jade bracelet". Although the store argued that it was after Fan Jianwu's repeated pleadings that it changed the first invoice item "jade bracelet" to "jade bracelet", based on the recorded evidence provided by Fan Jianwu, the store claimed that the bracelet it sold to Fan Jianwu was made of jade and explicitly informed Fan Jianwu that the jade bracelet purchased was made of jade. The store, as an operator, passed off the "pomegranate jade bracelet" as a "jade bracelet" and sold it to Fan Jianwu, passing it off as genuine, which can be considered as fraudulent consumers. The first instance court, in accordance with Article 55 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, ruled that Fan Jianwu would return the purchased bracelet to the cultural relics headquarters, and the store would refund Fan Jianwu 17100 yuan in payment; The cultural relics headquarters compensated Fan Jianwu with three times the price of the bracelet, totaling 51300 yuan. The Cultural Relics Headquarters refused to accept and filed an appeal on the grounds that there was an error in the original determination of facts and the application of law. The Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, held in the second instance that based on the invoice issued by the Cultural Relics Headquarters and the conversation recording provided by Fan Jianwu, it has been fully confirmed that the bracelet sold to Fan Jianwu was "jade bracelet". Now, the bracelet has been jointly entrusted by both parties for appraisal and has been determined to be "pomegranate jade bracelet", There is a significant difference in the quality of the goods claimed by the cultural relics headquarters during the sales process, so the original trial court determined that their behavior constitutes fraud and is not inappropriate. The cultural relics headquarters claimed that the disputed bracelet had cultural value and that its behavior did not constitute fraud. Fan Jianwu did not suffer any losses, and the reasons were not valid. Based on this, the court upheld the original judgment.

7、 Yu Aoyong v. Bi Liping, Product Seller Liability Dispute Case

——If the operator falsely promotes their health products to induce consumers to purchase, which constitutes commercial fraud, consumers have the right to request the operator to refund the purchase price and pay compensation three times the purchase price.

（1） Basic facts of the case

On April 16, 2014, Yu Aoyong purchased two sets of Shuangning brand functional health mattress with a specification of 2 meters from Bi Liping for 14100 yuan × 1.5 meters × 0.12 meters. After use, the mattress does not have the functions of preventing cancer, inhibiting cancer cell growth, and treating and preventing diseases promoted by Bi Liping. Therefore, Yu Aoyong filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Weihai Torch High tech Industrial Development Zone in Shandong Province, claiming that Bi Liping's actions constituted fraud against him. He requested that Bi Liping be ordered to refund the purchase price of 28200 yuan and compensate him with 84600 yuan three times the purchase price.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the sued court found that Bi Liping recognized the facts claimed by Yu Aoyong, and her actions constituted commercial fraud. She also acknowledged that the plaintiff should return the payment and pay three times the compensation according to the plaintiff's lawsuit request. In accordance with Article 55 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, the court ordered Bi Liping to refund the purchase price of 28200 yuan to Aoyong and compensate 84600 yuan, which is three times the purchase price of Aoyong. Bi Liping did not appeal.

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

——Consumers have the right to request the termination of the contract and a refund of the prepaid card balance if their card cannot be used due to the operator not operating at their original address during the consumption process.

（1） Basic facts of the case

On September 3, 2013, Baby Wang experienced swimming once at Beijing Yiluyou Baby Products Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yiluyou Company), and his mother paid a deposit of 100 yuan to Yiluyou Company to apply for a swimming card. On the 5th of the same month, his mother paid the remaining balance of 2498 yuan (from September 5th, 2013 to September 5th, 2014) to Yilu You Company for 40 swimming card applications. After applying for the card, Wang swam once and did not experience any crying. He cried during the third and fourth swimming sessions. In the second instance, Yilu You Company no longer operates at its original address, and Wang's swimming card can no longer be used. Wang requested to terminate the contract with Yilu You Company and refund the remaining amount, citing that the services provided by Yilu You Company did not comply with the contract and Wang was unable to achieve the purpose of the contract. However, he was rejected and filed a lawsuit with the Fengtai District People's Court of Beijing, requesting Yilu You Company to refund his deposit of 100 yuan and the balance of his swimming card of 2387.55 yuan.

（2） Judgment results

The first instance court held that the service contract orally concluded between Wang and Yiluyou Company was valid. The business scope, address, and invoice issues of Yilu You Company, as claimed by Wang, are not related to the purpose of the contract; The alleged violation of relevant management regulations by Yilu You Company and the provision of services that do not comply with the agreement, as well as insufficient evidence, cannot prove that its contractual purpose cannot be achieved and there is a causal relationship with the actions of Yilu You Company. Therefore, the judgment rejects Wang's lawsuit request. Wang filed an appeal claiming that Yilu You Company had breached the contract and the contract should be terminated. The Beijing Second Intermediate People's Court held in the second instance that during the second instance of this case, Yilu You Company, after being lawfully summoned, did not appear in court to respond to the lawsuit, nor did it operate in its place of operation and registration, resulting in the inability of Wang to continue using the swimming card he purchased, and the fact that the contract could no longer be fulfilled. Wang's appeal for termination of the contract is in line with the situation of contract termination stipulated in Article 93 of the Contract Law. Based on this, the court ruled to revoke the first instance judgment, terminate the service contract between Wang and Yilu You Company, and Yilu You Company will refund Wang's swimming card fee of 2262.65 yuan and a deposit of 100 yuan.

9、 Wu Junmei v. Zhejiang Suning Yunshang Trading Co., Ltd. Sales Contract Dispute Case

——If the seller installs the air conditioning unit they sell according to the agreement, and safety hazards occur during the installation process, causing losses to consumers, they shall bear corresponding compensation responsibilities.

（1） Basic facts of the case

On April 30, 2008, Wu Junmei purchased a large gold medal air conditioner from Zhejiang Suning Yunshang Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Suning Company) for a total price of 8051 yuan. Suning Company issued an installation order to Wu Junmei and arranged for someone to install an air conditioner at Wu Junmei's house on May 11, 2008. In August 2013, the floors and walls of Wu Junmei's living room and adjacent rooms were eroded by water. After inspection and confirmation by the after-sales personnel of Dajin Air Conditioning, it was found that the wall hole where the air conditioning unit drainage pipe passed through was not blocked, and the water leakage was caused by a mouse biting the wall hole drainage pipe. Wu Junmei repaired the damaged floor, walls, and related areas, but the repair costs were not compensated. Wu Junmei then filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Xiaoshan District, Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, requesting Suning Company to compensate him with a loss of 14104 yuan and pay a mental injury compensation of 10000 yuan.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the sued court found that the sales contract relationship between Wu Junmei and Suning Company is established and legally valid. Air conditioning units are a type of refrigeration equipment that requires high installation standards. As a seller, Suning Company should not only provide machines and equipment that meet quality requirements, but also provide installation services that meet the requirements of the standards. The air conditioner purchased by Wu Junmei, whether actually installed by the manufacturer or by the seller, cannot exclude the seller's obligation as the counterparty to the contract to ensure the normal use of the air conditioner and not cause personal or property damage. Suning Company did not fulfill its reasonable and prudent duty of care, and failed to ensure that the wall holes through which the air conditioning drainage pipes passed were sealed, causing mice to enter the wall holes and bite off the drainage pipes, causing water leakage and causing damage to the interior walls and floors. Its failure to properly fulfill its contractual obligations has a causal relationship with the result of the damage, and it is responsible for the losses suffered by Wu Junmei as a result. As a consumer, Wu Junmei requested Suning Company to compensate for the costs incurred in repairing the floor and walls, and the hospital provided support. Wu Junmei's claims for work delay fees and compensation for mental damage lack basis and are not supported by the court. The court ruled that Suning Company compensated Wu Junmei with 12175 yuan for the actual repair cost. Suning Company did not appeal.

10、 Wang Yi v. Tianjin Zhongjin Peixian Automobile Service Co., Ltd. Sales Contract Dispute Case

——The operator's sale of cars that have been announced for recall constitutes commercial fraud. Consumers have the right to request a refund of the purchased car, and the operator shall refund the purchase price and compensate twice the purchase price.

（1） Basic facts of the case

On September 28, 2013, Wang Yi purchased a small off-road passenger car from Tianjin Zhongjin Peixian Automobile Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhongjin Automobile Company), named Oulande JE3A2693, for a price of 249800 yuan. Zhongjin Automobile Company paid a vehicle purchase tax of 22700 yuan, a vehicle and vessel tax of 225 yuan, a compulsory insurance premium of 1100 yuan for motor vehicle traffic accidents, and a comprehensive insurance premium of 10752 yuan for motor vehicles on behalf of Wang Yi, totaling 34777 yuan. The registration fee was 900 yuan. On October 15, 2013, Zhongjin Automobile Company delivered the vehicle to Wang Yi. On February 7, 2014, Zhongjin Automobile Company notified Wang Yi that the vehicle should be recalled. On June 4, 2013, Mitsubishi Automobile Sales (China) Co., Ltd. issued a recall notice for some imported Outlander cars, covering the period from June 5, 2013 to June 4, 2014. The scope of the recalled vehicles includes those purchased by Wang Yi. The defect was caused by the supplier's manufacturing, resulting in a malfunction of the internal microcomputer power supply component in the monitoring of the electric power steering control component. There may be consequences such as incorrect startup of the power monitoring circuit, posing a safety hazard. The maintenance measure is to replace the electric power steering control component (EPS ECU). Wang Yisui filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Binhai New Area in Tianjin, requesting the return of the car. Zhongjin Automobile Company refunded the purchase price of 285477 yuan and tripled the compensation of 749400 yuan.

（2） Judgment results

The first instance court held that in this case, the producer had already informed the public through media announcements about the fact that some imported Outlander cars had product defects that should be recalled and the scope of the recall. Therefore, the fact that the disputed vehicle belongs to the vehicle that should be recalled belongs to the matter that has been notified to the public, and there is no concealment. In addition, according to the recall notice issued by the manufacturer, the defects of the disputed vehicle can be eliminated by replacing the improved electric power steering control component (EPS ECU). Afterwards, Zhongjin Automobile Company proactively informed Wang Yi that the defect of the disputed vehicle has not been eliminated and the component needs to be replaced. Therefore, Zhongjin Automobile Company has no intention of concealing this. In summary, the actions of Zhongjin Automobile Company do not constitute fraud, so the judgment rejects Wang Yi's lawsuit request. Wang Yi filed an appeal on the grounds that the original judgment found the facts unclear and the application of the law was incorrect. The Tianjin Second Intermediate People's Court held in the second instance that as an operator, Zhongjin Automobile Company should know whether the vehicle belongs to the scope of recall, and its defense of not knowing about the recall of the involved vehicle cannot be established. Zhongjin Automobile Company conceals vehicle defects and sells them, which constitutes commercial fraud. The vehicle sales behavior in this case occurred before the revision of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, so Zhongjin Automobile Company should bear the legal responsibility of "one refund, one compensation". The second instance judgment of the court: revoked the first instance judgment of this case, Wang Yi returned the car to Zhongjin Automobile Company, and Zhongjin Automobile Company refunded Wang Yi the purchase price of 249800 yuan, doubled the compensation of 249800 yuan, and compensated Wang Yi with a total of 35677 yuan, including vehicle purchase tax.