Core tips
Wang provided a model commissioned by Chen to process shoes. After completing the first shipment, Wang requested Chen to deliver the second shipment directly to Wang's customers. Wang's customers reflected that the shoes processed by Chen did not conform to the standards, and Wang refused to pay Chen's processing fees on this ground. So, should Wang should not pay Chen processing fees?
The facts of the case: Wang commissioned Chen processing shoes, the two sides agreed that first by Wang to provide model shoes to Chen, Chen Bao material production model shoes confirmed by Wang, and then mass production.
Before the National Day in 2004, Chen delivered the first batch of finished shoes to Wang, and the processing fee was 50,000 yuan. In the delivery of the second batch of shoes, at Wang's request, Chen delivered the finished shoes directly to Wang's customers.
On February 6, 2005, after settlement by both parties, Wang issued an IOU to confirm that he owed Chen a processing fee of 72,000 yuan, and promised to pay half of the lunar month before the 15th lunar month and pay it on the 30th day of the lunar calendar month.
Later, according to Wang's customers, the shoes processed by Chen did not meet the requirements of the model shoes. Therefore, Wang used this as a reason. In March 2005, he only paid 50,000 yuan to Chen, and the remaining amount was 22,000 yuan. pay. To this end, Chen v. Wang to the court.
During the trial, Wang showed the prototype shoes and the shoes processed by Chen and asked for quality certification. He proved that the leather material of Chen's shoes did not match the model. However, Chen did not confirm that the shoes provided by Wang were produced.
The court of first instance held that both sides objected to the quality of the second batch of goods, but because both parties disputed the authenticity of the quality inspection materials (shoes) provided by Wang, it was impossible to qualify the existing shoes at Wang. Wang issued an IOU to Chen and paid 50,000 yuan, which should be regarded as reconfirmation of the fact of arrears. Therefore, Wang should pay processing fees of 22,000 yuan to Chen.
After the verdict, Wang was dissatisfied and filed an appeal that: First, the two sides did not agree on the method and time of acceptance. He asked Chen to send the finished shoes directly to the customer and the acceptance by the customer did not violate the agreement of both parties. Second, the first instance did not accept their own requirements for the identification of Chen finished shoes is wrong. The authenticity of the quality inspection materials (shoes) is controversial. This does not mean that the shoes that Chen had finished processing could not be determined. Chen's finished shoes can be determined and evaluated.
The court of second instance held that both parties did not agree on the criteria, methods, and timing of acceptance. Wang did not prove that he had agreed with Chen that the third person would accept the inspection. Therefore, Wang stated that his client’s acceptance behavior should be regarded as Its acceptance of Chen’s work results has no legal basis. Wang said that the shoes processed by Chen did not meet the model requirements, nor did he provide corresponding evidence to prove that he would not accept it.
Although at the first trial, Wang proposed an application for appraising the quality of processed shoes, but because the quality of the processed shoes was not clearly agreed between the two parties and the sample shoes and the shoes processed by Chen were not sealed, the identification materials could not be determined, and the original verdict was taken into consideration. The situation does not accept Wang's appraisal application and does not violate the statutory procedures.
Lawyer Comments: The nature of the contract is necessary in this case. Whether this case is a contract contract or a contract for sale and purchase, there will be differences in degree of fact determination. The court did not seem to have noticed this in its trials, and it was more concerned with quality assurance than the relevant provisions of the sales contract on quality. According to the "People's Republic of China Contract Law" and the relevant principles of the contract law, the sale contract and the contract of contract are two kinds of contracts of different nature. As for quality, the general conditions are based on the agreement of the parties. If there is agreement, and no agreement is made, the relevant terms or trading habits of the contract shall be determined. At the same time, national standards and industrial standards can be applied in the determination of quality; in the absence of national standards or industry standards, they are performed according to the usual standards or specific standards that meet the purpose of the contract.
Therefore, in this case, regardless of the nature of the contract to be dealt with, the quality of the determination can always be operational, so that the conclusion that the test cannot be concluded because there is no agreement. Of course, there are many factors that need to be taken into consideration in adjudicating a lawsuit. However, from the identification of facts and the determination of disputes, it is in accordance with the above-mentioned practices that the quality can be judged. This is in line with the interests of both parties.
Muslim Party Dress,Muslim Evening Dress,Muslim Dress,Muslim Long Dress
Fenghua Jade Motor Co., Ltd. , http://www.zjeveningdress.com