Plaintiff: Shanghai Pengbo Heavyweight Transportation Co., Ltd., domiciled at Room 8277, Building 1, No. 1758, Luchaogang Road, Nanhui New Town, Pudong New Area, Shanghai.
Legal representative: Li Shijun, general manager of the company.
Attorney ad litem: Pang Shaolei, lawyer of Shanghai Minglun Law Firm.
Defendant: Yangzhou Fulkan Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd., domiciled at No. 8, Huagang Road, Hanjiang Industrial Park, Yangzhou City, Jiangsu Province.
Legal representative: Zhu Qi'an, chairman of the company.
Attorney-at-Law: Ji Yao, legal counsel of the company.
The plaintiff Shanghai Pengbo Bulk Transportation Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Pengbo Company) and the defendant, Yangzhou Vulkan Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Vulkan Company), concerning the dispute over the sale and purchase contract, this court accepted the case on March 6, 2019 The trial was held in public on April 26, 2019 by judge Wang Yu applying the summary procedure. Li Shijun, the legal representative of the plaintiff Pengbo Company, and Pang Shaolei, the agent ad litem, and Ji Yao, the agent ad litem of the defendant Vulkan Company, appeared in court to participate in the lawsuit. The trial of this case has now been concluded.
The plaintiff Pengbo Company filed a lawsuit with this court: 1. The defendant Vulkan Company was ordered to return the plaintiff's deposit of 78,750 yuan; 2. The defendant Vulkan Company was ordered to compensate the plaintiff's deposit of 78,750 yuan; 3. The defendant Vulkan Company was ordered to pay the plaintiff's deposit of 78,750 yuan. The company undertakes. Facts and reasons: On April 8, 2017, the plaintiff and the defendant signed a "sales contract", stipulating that the plaintiff should purchase from the defendant a low-profile cargo platform required for the transportation of bulky goods, and the defendant would deliver it after the production was completed in accordance with the agreed technical specifications. plaintiff. After the contract was signed, the plaintiff paid a deposit of 78,750 yuan to the defendant on May 5, 2017 according to the contract. The defendant arranged production after receiving the deposit, but the prototype produced did not pass the load and pressure test after two revisions, and the product did not meet the agreed technical standards. To this day, the equipment provided by the defendant is still unable to achieve the purpose of the contract, causing huge losses to the plaintiff. The defendant also verbally agreed to refund the deposit, but it has not been paid. The plaintiff sued the court in order to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests, and requested a judgment as requested.
The defendant, Vulkan Company, argued that: 1. The flat pallets produced by our company in accordance with the sales contract signed with the plaintiff and the technical requirements conformed to the contract, and the flat pallets were customized products and were produced for special requirements. Our company has fulfilled the production obligations in accordance with the contract, the products meet the technical requirements, and there is no fact that the deposit should be refunded. 2. There is no objection to the fact that the plaintiff has paid a deposit of 78,750 yuan; 3. The low-level pallets stipulated in the sales contract have not yet been delivered, and our company has repeatedly notified the plaintiff to pick up the goods, two of which notified the plaintiff to deliver the goods on site. The plaintiff and the defendant jointly agreed that the low-slab cargo platform involved in the case should have a load capacity of 200 tons, but did not specify the load test method. The plaintiff's request to load the front of the locomotive for testing is inconsistent with the agreement on the drawing that the flat plate can carry 200 tons, resulting in a discrepancy in the testing methods of the two parties and the failure of the load test. Therefore, the plaintiff refused to pick up the goods, not because of our company's failure to deliver the goods. To sum up, the court is requested to dismiss the plaintiff's claim.
The court found the facts as follows:
On April 8, 2017, Pengbo Company (buyer, Party B) and Vulkan Company (seller, Party A) signed a "sales contract", stipulating that Pengbo Company would purchase from Vulkan Company the specifications of height 200 width 3000 1 low-flat pallet with a total price of 262,500 yuan. After Party A receives the deposit from Party B, it will provide product design drawings, and Party A will organize production within 3 days after confirmation by Party B, and the delivery period is 40 days. If Party B proposes a change during the period, it will be counted from the date of the last change. Party A guarantees that the products provided conform to the drawings confirmed by both parties. After Party B receives the acceptance notice from Party A, it will send personnel for acceptance inspection. If there is any objection to the product quality, it shall submit a written objection report to Party A within 10 days, and Party A shall be responsible for rectification; convention. Party B shall be responsible for the transportation by itself, arrange the consignee to pick up the products at the location of Party A's company, and Party A shall fulfill the delivery obligation by delivering the products to Party B or the consignee designated by Party A. Party B shall pay 30% of the total contract amount to Party A as a deposit within 3 days from the date of signing this contract; the balance of the contract shall be paid after the product has passed the acceptance inspection; Party B shall arrange the shipment after receiving the full payment from Party A.
After the contract was signed, Pengbo Company paid a deposit of 78,750 yuan to Vulkan Company on May 5, 2017.
After receiving the deposit from Pengbo Company, Vulkan Company started the production of low-bed pallets, and notified Pengbo Company twice to pick up the goods. Because the load-bearing test of the cargo platform failed to reach the agreed 200 tons twice, Pengbo refused to pick up the goods.
This court believes that the "sales contract" signed by the plaintiff and the defendant, established in accordance with the law, is an expression of the true intentions of both parties, does not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and regulations, and is legal and valid. Although the contract is called a sales contract, it can be determined according to the specific rights, obligations and terms of the contract that the contract is actually a processing contract. When a contractual relationship is established between the two parties, both parties shall perform the contract in accordance with the contract. If one party delays in performing its obligations or has other breaches of contract, the purpose of the contract cannot be achieved, the other party has the right to rescind the contract. The plaintiff and the defendant unanimously confirmed in court that the low-slab cargo platform involved in the case should bear 200 tons, and the low-slab cargo platform produced by the defendant failed two load-bearing tests. The defendant argued that after the production of the low-flat pallet involved in the case, the company carried out the load-bearing test and passed it, but did not provide evidence to prove it, and this court rejected it. The defendants also argued that the plaintiff had loaded the front of the vehicle in front of the low-bed cargo bed during the load-bearing test, which resulted in the failure of the load-bearing test. In the "Sale Contract" involved, both the plaintiff and the defendant set the acceptance criteria for the product as "consistent with the drawings confirmed by both parties". The name of the drawing provided by the defendant in the court trial was "Shanghai Jinggen Heavy Loading 200T Cargo Platform". The plaintiff did not recognize the authenticity of the drawing, and the technical description of the drawing only stated that "the front and rear ends of the cargo bed are separated from the hinges." The cargo is loaded after the skid block at the center of 1600MM, and each end bears a concentrated load of 100T, a total of 200T”. The plaintiff's purchase of the low-slab cargo platform involved in the case was used for large-scale transportation, and the loading test was not inappropriate. Therefore, it can be confirmed that the load-bearing standard of the low-slab cargo platform involved in the case did not reach 200 tons. Conforms to the contract. Although the plaintiff did not submit a written objection report, it refused to accept the goods twice due to product quality problems, but the defendant has not been able to solve the quality problems of the low-flat pallets involved in the case, resulting in the failure to achieve the purpose of the contract and constituting a fundamental breach of contract. The defendant's request to rescind the sales contract involved in the case and return the deposit has factual and legal basis, and this court supports it. According to Article 89 of the "Guarantee Law of the People's Republic of China", the parties may agree to pay a deposit to the other party as a guarantee for the creditor's rights. After the debtor performs the debt, the deposit shall be offset against the price or recovered. If the party paying the deposit fails to perform the agreed debt, it has no right to demand the return of the deposit; if the party receiving the deposit fails to perform the agreed debt, the deposit shall be doubled. Article 120 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Guarantee Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that due to the delay in performance or other breach of contract by one party, the purpose of the contract cannot be achieved, and the penalty of deposit may be applied. Except as otherwise provided by law or otherwise agreed by the parties. If one of the parties does not fully perform the contract, the penalty of deposit shall be applied according to the proportion of the unfulfilled part to the content of the contract. The low-flat pallet delivered by the defendant did not conform to the contract, and the purpose of the contract could not be realized. The plaintiff's request for the application of the penalty penalty has factual and legal basis, and this court supports it. According to Article 91 of the "Guarantee Law of the People's Republic of China", "The amount of the deposit shall be agreed by the parties, but shall not exceed 20% of the subject matter of the main contract", in this case, the contract involved stipulated that "Party B shall 30% of the total contract value shall be paid to Party A as a deposit within 3 days from the date of signing the contract.” The plaintiff paid 30% of the total contract value to the defendant as a deposit, i.e. 78,750 yuan as a deposit. Penalties for deposit may apply, but the agreed amount of deposit shall not exceed 20% of the subject matter of the main contract. The total amount of the main contract involved is 262,500 yuan, 20% of which is 52,500 yuan as a deposit, the excess 26,250 yuan should be used as a prepayment, and the double return of the deposit amount is 105,000 yuan, so the defendant should double the 105,000 yuan deposit to the plaintiff. and advance payment of 26,250 yuan. Accordingly, in accordance with Article 60, Article 94(4), Article 107, Article 115, and Article 251 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, Articles 89 and 91 of the Guarantee Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 120 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Guarantee Law of the People's Republic of China, The first paragraph of Article 64 of the Law stipulates that the judgment is as follows:
1. The defendant, Yangzhou Vulkan Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd., shall return the deposit of RMB 78,750 to the plaintiff Shanghai Pengbo Heavyweight Transportation Co., Ltd. within ten days from the date when this judgment takes legal effect;
2. The defendant, Yangzhou Vulkan Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd., shall compensate the plaintiff Shanghai Pengbo Large-scale Transportation Co., Ltd. for a deposit of RMB 52,500 within ten days from the date when this judgment takes legal effect;
3. To reject other claims of the plaintiff Shanghai Pengbo Heavyweight Transportation Co., Ltd.
If the obligation to pay money is not fulfilled within the period specified in this judgment, the debt interest during the period of delayed performance shall be doubled in accordance with the provisions of Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.
The acceptance fee for this case is 3,450 yuan, halved to 1,725 yuan, which is borne by the plaintiff Shanghai Pengfeng Large-scale Transportation Co., Ltd. 293 yuan, and the defendant Yangzhou Vulkan Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 1,432 yuan (the plaintiff has paid in advance. The plaintiff agreed to The litigation fee shall be paid directly by the defendant, and the court will not refund it. The defendant, Yangzhou Vulkan Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd., shall directly pay RMB 1,432 to the plaintiff Shanghai Pengbo Heavyweight Transportation Co., Ltd. within ten days from the date when this judgment takes effect. ).
If you are not satisfied with this judgment, you may submit an appeal petition to this court within 15 days from the date of service of the judgment, and submit a copy according to the number of opposing parties, and appeal to the Intermediate People's Court of Yangzhou City, Jiangsu Province.