On June 15, the Supreme People's Court issued 10 typical cases of consumer rights protection, including Wang Yi v. Tianjin Zhongjin Peixing Automobile Service Co., Ltd., and the court found that the operator sold the car that had been announced for recall, which constituted commercial fraud. . Acrylic Mold,Transparent Mold,Plastic Injection Mold,Precision Gear Mould Dongguan Kaisijin Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd , https://www.dgsmartlockoems.com
On September 28, 2013, Wang Yi purchased a small off-road passenger car of Outlander JE3A2693 from Tianjin Zhongjin Peixing Automobile Service Co., Ltd. for a price of 249,800 yuan. Zhongjin Automobile Co., Ltd. paid a total of 34,777 yuan for vehicle purchase tax, vehicle and vessel tax, and motor vehicle insurance insurance for Wang Yi, and charged 900 yuan for the card fee.
Yang Linping, member of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court and President of the People's Court: Wang Yi purchased an imported small off-road passenger car from Tianjin Zhongjin Peixing Automobile Service Co., Ltd., and was informed that the car was recalled by the manufacturer due to defects. He sued the court and requested to return the car. Zhongjin Automobile Company refunded the purchase price and tripled the purchase price.
The court of first instance held that the producers in the case had already informed the public through the announcement of the media that the fact that some of the imported Outlander vehicles had product defects should be recalled and the scope of the recall required. Therefore, the claim that the vehicle belongs to the recalled vehicle belongs to the public. The matter of notification did not exist in a concealed situation, and did not constitute fraud. Wang Yi lost the case. Wang Yi refused to accept the appeal. The court of second instance held that Zhongjin Automobile Co., as the operator, should know whether the vehicle belongs to the scope of the recall. The reason for the defense against the recall of the vehicle involved cannot be established.
Zhongjin Automobile Company concealed the sale of vehicles and constituted commercial fraud. Because the car purchase behavior occurred before the revision of the Consumer Protection Law, the seller should bear the responsibility of refunding one compensation. Therefore, the court of second instance ruled that Wang Yi returned the vehicle, and Zhongjin Automobile Company assumed responsibility for returning one to one to Wang Yi.
What is the typical significance of this case? Yang Linping analysis:
Yang Linping: The operator sells the car that has been announced for recall, which constitutes commercial fraud. The consumer has the right to request a refund of the purchased car, and the operator refunds the purchase price and compensates for the purchase price.