“Sales fault” Beijing Xin Yu fei company v. Yong ji aquatic products company product sellers responsibility case

2022-06-08 0 By

Product seller liability depends on the seller fault degree, the nature of the buyer —— Xin Yu fei company v. Yong Ji Aquatic products Co., LTD. Product seller liability case 1.No. 7855 Civil Judgment of Beijing No.2 Intermediate People’s Court (2019)Case: Product seller liability dispute 3.Plaintiff (Appellee) : Xinyufeixiang Company, Defendant (Appellant) : Yongji Aquatic Products Company Xinyufeixiang Company purchased Jiangtuan Fish from Yongji Aquatic Products Company from February 3, 2018 to February 6, 2018.The receipt sealed by Yong Ji Aquatic products Company shows that yong ji Aquatic products Company sold 316 kilograms of Jiang Tuan fish to Xinyu Feixiang Company on February 6.On April 23, 2018, Beijing Fengtai District Food and Drug Administration made (Jingfeng) Food Punishment (2018) No. 100199 Administrative Punishment Decision for Beijing Qiyufu Grilled Fish Restaurant, and determined that the illegal facts are:On February 6, 2018, Beijing Fengtai District Food and Drug Administration entrusted Penney Testing Group Co., Ltd. to conduct sampling inspection on the Fish sold by your unit (purchase date: February 6, 2018);On March 2, 2018, Bunny Test Group Co., Ltd. issued the inspection report.Through the sampling inspection, the malachite green item in the fish sold by your unit does not meet the requirements of The Ministry of Agriculture no.235, and the inspection conclusion is unqualified.According to the investigation, on February 6, 2018, your company bought 11 catty jiang Round fish from Xinyufeixiang Company at the price of 16.5 yuan/catty, and the total purchase price was 181.5 yuan.As of March 21, 2018, all the batches of Jiangtuan fish have been sold, of which 6 catties were sold to testing institutions at the price of 16.5 yuan/catty.The remaining 5 jin were sold to customers at the price of 68 yuan per jin.The total sales price is 439 yuan.Your unit deals in the above food with a value of 181.5 yuan and gets an illegal income of 439 yuan.Give your unit the following administrative punishment: 1.A warning.2.Illegal gains of 439 yuan were confiscated;3.The fine is 30,000 yuan.Beijing odd fish husband grilled fish shop paid the above fines.On May 18, 2018, Beijing Fengtai District Food and Drug Administration made (Jingfeng) Food and Drug Administration Food Penalty (2018) No. 070248 Administrative Penalty Decision to Xinyufei Company, and determined that the illegal facts are:On March 13, 2018, our bureau received an inspection report issued by Peny Testing Group Co., LTD., which showed that the item of Jiang Tuanyu malachite green sold by the party concerned did not meet the standard requirements of The Ministry of Agriculture Announcement No. 235, and the inspection conclusion was unqualified.On February 6, 2018, Xinyufeixiang Company purchased 316kg of jiang Tuan fish from Yongji Fishery Company at the price of 16 yuan/jin and sold them at the price of 18 yuan/jin.On March 13, 2018, law enforcement personnel on-site inspection on client premises, sampling batch jiang soft shelled turtle all sales (11 pounds sold to Beijing, fish, grilled fish shop, remaining all sales to individuals), the operating value of 5688 yuan, obtain 5688 yuan of the illegal income, illegal operation of the special tools and equipment.The bureau finally gave xinyu flying company the following administrative penalties: 1.A warning.2.Confiscation of 5,688 yuan of illegal gains;3.A fine of 100,000 yuan.Xin Yu fei company paid the above fines and confiscations.During the trial, in order to show its losses, Xinyufeixiang company submitted to the court invoices for lawyers’ fees, jiang Tuanyu recall notice, dispute settlement agreement and receipt of 15,000 yuan deducted by Beijing Qiyufu Grilled Fish Restaurant.Yong ji aquatic products company to the above evidence are not recognized.Yong Ji aquatic products company claims that it provides xin Yu feiying company’s jiang Tuan fish are qualified products, to which it submitted an inquiry record, testing report.1.Yong Ji aquatic products company should be xin Yu flying company to bear the responsibility of product sellers;2.Yong ji aquaculture company’s degree of responsibility.Beijing Fengtai district people’s Court thinks through trial: the seller ought to sell quality and safety qualified products.Where the seller is unable to identify either the producer or the supplier of the defective product, the seller shall be liable for compensation.Where a defective product causes damage to human life or property of another person, the aggrieved person may demand compensation from the producer of the product or from the seller of the product.According to the facts and find out to the case (JingFeng) food drug safety penalty (2018) 070248 facts, determined by the administrative penalty, xin yu fly from yong ji company on February 6, aquaculture company buy soft shelled turtle, jiang xin yu fly company Beijing again to an outsider, fish, grilled fish shop sold the jiang soft shelled turtle, after sampling inspection is unqualified.The jiang Tuan fish purchased by Xinyufei Company from Yong Ji Aquatic Products Company was detected by Beijing Fengtai District Food and Drug Administration that malachite green item did not meet relevant requirements, resulting in the confiscation of illegal income and a total fine of 105,688 yuan. Therefore, Xinyufei Company has the right to claim corresponding tort liability to the seller, namely Yong Ji Aquatic Products Company.However, Xin Yufei company did not do the duty of careful review when purchasing, and should also bear certain responsibility for the damage consequences.Although Yongji Aquatic products company submitted the test report and inquiry record, but the test report is its unilateral commissioned, and the inquiry record is its unilateral statement, unable to form a chain of evidence to overturn the administrative penalty decision written investigation of the facts determined.Therefore, yong Ji aquatic products company’s explanation that the jiang Tuan fish involved in the case was purchased from other places is groundless and the court does not accept it.As for the amount of compensation, the 105,688 yuan of fines paid by Xinyufei Company and the 15,000 yuan it bears to Beijing Qiyufu Grilled fish Shop, an alien in the case, belong to the reasonable loss range of Xinyufei Company. Yong Ji Aquatic Products Company should compensate, and the specific amount of compensation will be determined by the court according to the degree of fault of both parties.Xin Yufei company’s claim for attorney’s fees and other economic losses is groundless, and the court does not support this part of the lawsuit.In accordance with the provisions of Article 42 and Article 43 of tort Liability Law of the People’s Republic of China, the People’s Court of Fengtai District of Beijing makes the following judgment: 1. Yongji Aquatic Products Company shall compensate XinYufeixiang Company for the economic loss of 60,344 YUAN within seven days from the effective date of this judgment;Ii. Other litigation claims of Xinyufei Company shall be rejected.Yong ji aquatic products company refuses to accept the first instance judgment, filed an appeal.The Second Intermediate People’s Court of Beijing held that:In the first and second trials of this case, Yong Ji Aquatic Products Company did not provide evidence to prove that the fish involved in the case was a qualified product. Yong Ji Aquatic Products Company, as the supplier of the unqualified fish involved in the case, should assume the compensation responsibility for the loss of Xinyufeixiang Company.The first-instance court determined that the amount of compensation borne by Yong Ji Aquatic Products Company was not unreasonable and maintained in combination with the forfeiture paid by Xinyufeixiang Company and the liability of compensation borne by outsiders.The Second Intermediate People’s Court of Beijing rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment in accordance with the provisions of item 1, Paragraph 1, Article 170 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China.Food is the life of the people, food to safety first.Food safety concerns national economy and people’s livelihood.Where a defective product causes damage to another person, the producer shall be liable for tort.Where the seller is unable to identify neither the producer nor the supplier of the defective product, the seller shall be liable for infringement.About the subject of product liability.It can be seen from the Product Quality Law of the People’s Republic of China and the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China that the regulation of the producer and the seller as the subject of liability in China’s legislation is consistent, and the two bear untrue joint liability in the product compensation liability.On the imputation principle of product liability.Where a product defect endangers the safety of the person or property of another person, the infringed party shall have the right to request the producer or seller to bear the tort liability for removing the obstruction and eliminating the danger.Sellers and producers bear no-fault liability to consumers, that is, when consumers endanger their personal or property safety due to product defects, they can either request producers to assume tort liability or request consumers to assume tort liability, without proving the existence of fault.But the internal imputation principle between the seller and the producer is different, the seller bears the fault responsibility, the producer bears the no-fault responsibility.When considering the liability of the seller, the fault degree of the seller and the nature of the buyer should be examined emphatically.First, the fault degree of the seller.If there is a defect in the product due to the fault of the seller, whether the food seller fulfils the obligation of strict examination.In this case, the defendant yong ji aquatic products company is a seller, should sell safe and qualified products.According to the provisions of article 12 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Product Quality, the quality of products shall be checked and qualified, and unqualified products shall not be disguised as qualified products.The first paragraph of Article 53 of the Food Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates that when purchasing food, a food trader shall examine the supplier’s license and the food ex-factory inspection certificate or other certificates of conformity.Yong ji aquaculture company says it sold to jiang xin yu fly company soft shelled turtle quality qualified, but its not through relevant departments counterproposal wading river soft shelled turtle for testing, product sold or fly to xin yu company provide quality inspection report, yong ji aquaculture company as a case involving quality not qualified suppliers of soft shelled turtle jiang xin yu fly the loss of the company shall bear the liability for compensation.Second, the nature of the buyer.The court should consider whether the purchaser is an ordinary consumer or a food selling enterprise.In this case, Yong Ji aquatic products company is not direct sales to consumers, but wholesale sales to the food business.Xinyufei company is a legal person enterprise, its business scope includes the sale of food, so as a food operator, the purchase of food, should check the supplier’s license and food factory inspection certificate or other qualified certificates.Xinyufei company did not perform the corresponding obligations to check the food inspection certificate, and should bear part of the fault.Both parties in this case, as food sellers, failed to fulfill strict and prudent obligations, so they should each bear 50% of the responsibility.