Two production dates appeared on the chocolate packaging box. After the sales company was returned by the customer, the sales company claimed the food company that produced chocolate to the court.Recently, the Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court tried the case of a trading contract dispute involved in the litigation contract due to the double date of chocolate packaging. The two parties had their own words. Who should pay for it?
On April 8, 2021, a food company signed the “Distribution Contract” with a sales company, agreed that the sales company was a authorized dealer of the food company. The product of the distribution was: the food company chocolate series products; the sales channels were commercial.The quality and packaging of the product must meet the corresponding standards of the national standards. If there is no national standard, the industry standards are applicable, and there are no industry standards, it must meet the enterprise standards of the manufacturer.After the inspection of the product, if the product variety, quantity, quality, etc. are found, they need to make a written objection to the food company within 3 days from the date of acceptance, otherwise they will be considered qualified for acceptance.
On the same day, the food company agreed to give the sales company’s 15,000 -headed batch of payment credit.
On the day of the contract signing, the sales company started ordering from the food company.On April 14 of the same year, the food company provided 188 boxes of goods to the sales company, with a total amount of more than 38,000 yuan.The sales company pays more than 23,000 yuan, and the remaining 15,000 yuan has not been paid.
In mid -May of the same year, sales company personnel reported to the food company through WeChat that there was a double date problem on the packaging of chocolate involved in the case.After that, the supermarket returned to the sales company, with a total return of about 20,000 yuan.The reason for the return of one supermarket showed “quality problem, the company recovered”.At the same time, due to the double date problem, the sales company was fined 2,000 yuan by the supermarket.According to statistics from the sales company, the total inventory amount is more than 27,000 yuan.
Food companies sue the sales company to the court on the grounds that the sales company refuses to pay the remaining payment, asking them to pay 15,000 yuan for the remaining payment.
The sales company refuses to pay the remaining payment, because the chocolate packaging provided by the food company has a double -date quality problem, which leads to most products from the supermarket to remove and return the goods. The sales company shall bear fines and compensation for this.Therefore, the sales company does not need to pay the remaining payment.In addition, food companies also need to refund more than 23,000 yuan in money they have paid and compensate for losses.To this end, the sales company filed a counterclaim.
In response to counterclaims, food companies argued that evidence such as product photos and returns provided by the sales company cannot prove that the chocolate involved in the case has a double date. If there is a problem, it may be made by dealers or others.And the case involved in the “Distribution Contract” agreed on the inspection period of 3 days. The sales company received the goods on April 14, 2021. After receiving the goods, the quality objection was not proposed during the inspection period.EssenceAt the same time, before the product was launched, the sales company did not check carefully, and there were also faults.In summary, food companies do not agree with their counterclaim requests.
During the trial of the case, the sales manager of the food company went to the court to make a certificate, and the case of chocolate involved in the case was a double date.
The court of first instance believes that the buying and selling contract between food companies and sales companies is the true meaning of the two parties. It is legal and effective, and both parties should abide by the performance.The food company provides goods to the sales company according to the contract, and the sales company has not paid the payment of 15,000 yuan due, and it should be paid immediately.
For the counterclaim request of the sales company, from the evidence provided by the sales company and the statement of the witness in court, it can be seen that the case involved in the case does have a double date problem, and the supermarket will be returned by the supermarket and the customer claims.The court in the first instance combined with the argument, the degree of fault, and the inventory of the two parties, the food company would be determined to return the sales company to 20,000 yuan, and compensated the sales company to the loss of 2,000 yuan for the customer’s claim of 2,000 yuan.
The food company did not accept it and appealed to the Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court.
After hearing it, the Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court believed that the combination of the evidence provided by the sales company and the witness testimony was enough to prove that the case involved in the cargo, that is, the double date of the chocolate packaging, and the sales company was returned and fined by the supermarket due to the above quality problems.fact.
As for the food company’s appeal, the sales company did not propose a quality objection during the 3 -day inspection period agreed in the “Distribution Contract”, which should be deemed that the sales company has default to the product without quality problems.And even if there are the above problems, it cannot prove that it is caused by a food company.
In this regard, the Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court believes that according to Article 622 of the Civil Code, the inspection period agreed by the parties is too short. According to the nature and trading habits of the subject matter, it is difficult for the buyer to complete the inspection period.This period is only deemed to be the deadline for the appearance flaw of the buyer to the target.The two -date problem of chocolate involved in the case exists in the internal packaging, and it is supplying the entire box during supply. Therefore, the problem of double -date internal packaging can be regarded as hidden flaws, and it does not belong to obvious appearance flaws.Therefore, even if the sales company fails to propose a quality objection within the 3 -day inspection period agreed in the contract, it cannot be exempted from the quality flaw guarantee responsibility of the food company.The food company needs to bear the responsibility for proof of the quality of the case involved in the case, but it fails to provide evidence to prove that the quality problem is caused by the sales company or other subjects, and it shall bear unfavorable legal consequences.
In addition, according to the provisions of Article 34 of the Food Safety Law, foods marked with false production date are prohibited in the scope of production and operation. The double date is obviously a situation that marked the false production date. Therefore, the chocolate involved in the case cannot be sold.In fact, a large number of chocolate involved in the case was returned, and the contract of the sales company’s contract involved in the contract was destined to be unable to achieve.
In this case, food companies are fundamental default.Sales companies can exercise their legal rights in accordance with the law, request the termination of the contract and request the other party to return the payment and compensate for losses.The first instance court combined with the argument, the degree of fault, and inventory of the two parties, the food company will be rewarded to the sales company’s payment of 20,000 yuan, and the 2,000 yuan losses of the 2,000 yuan for the sales company will compensate the customer.
You May Also Like
More From Author
