In early December, a civil judgment issued by the Intermediate People’s Court of Shaoyang City, Hunan Province attracted Sir Tao’s attention.
The reason is as follows:
On December 8, 2019, due to the need for decoration of their new house, Huang and Zhang went to the ceramic tile store run by Zeng to buy ceramic tiles. They selected the type of ceramic tiles and negotiated the price in person. The final selection included 800×800mm full-body marble tiles from a brand in Foshan, as well as other decoration materials for exterior walls, interior walls and lines.
In the afternoon of the same day, Zeng brought samples to Huang and Zhang's new house to measure the quantity. It was agreed that the quantity of ceramic tiles should be refunded if there was any excess, and the quantity signed by the construction master and another client would prevail. samples for confirmation.
On December 10, 2019, Zeng delivered goods to Huang and Zhang’s new house. Zeng notified the delivery status via WeChat. Huang promised that the construction would be completed and he would go home during the Chinese New Year in 2020 before settling the bill. Finally, after confirmation by the construction master and Huang's client, the total payment was 32,504 yuan.
As of the date of filing the lawsuit, Huang refused to pay the price on the grounds that the ceramic tiles were of poor quality and unsightly. According to Huang's request, Zeng informed Huang of the material quality inspection report that he had doubts about, but Huang still did not pay as originally agreed.
Zeng took Huang and Zhang to court:
On July 2 this year, the Shaoyang Wugang People’s Court filed a case.
Defendants Huang and Zhang argued that Zeng did not deliver the goods at the agreed time and was not at home when the goods were delivered, resulting in the defendants not being very clear about the quantity of tiles; and that the tiles actually delivered by Zeng were different from the agreed tiles. The styles were inconsistent and the price was unknown to the defendant. For this reason, there are objections to the price and quantity of ceramic tiles.
After that, Zeng submitted evidence, but Huang did not submit evidence within the time limit for providing evidence.
The court ruled after the trial:
The plaintiff and the defendant verbally agreed on the model and price of the ceramic tiles to be purchased, and the plaintiff actually delivered the ceramic tiles and other materials to the defendant. The delivery documents were also signed by the defendant's construction personnel and the client.
At the same time, the ceramic tiles and other materials delivered by the plaintiff were actually used by the defendant, and the defendant did not raise any objection to the quality and model of the ceramic tiles during use.
After the goods were delivered and used, the defendant received the model, quantity and price documents of the delivered ceramic tiles and other decoration materials from the plaintiff on WeChat and did not raise any objection.
During the trial, the defendant argued that it had objections to the model, quantity, quality and price of ceramic tiles and other materials provided by the plaintiff, but did not submit any evidence.
Therefore, the court made a judgment: Defendants Huang and Zhang must pay plaintiff Zeng 32,504 yuan for materials within 5 days from the date of the judgment taking effect.
Huang and Zhang appealed and submitted a CD:
Huang and Zhang still filed the above request to overturn the first-instance judgment on the grounds that Zeng had not provided evidence to prove that the ceramic tiles they provided met the quality, specifications, and models agreed by both parties, and conformed to the samples selected by both parties.
Huang submitted a CD to the Shaoyang Intermediate People's Court to prove that there were quality problems with the ceramic tiles involved. Zeng cross-examined and believed that the disc recorded stripes on the tiles, which was not a quality problem.
After the trial, the Shaoyang Intermediate People’s Court still held that:
The CD submitted by Huang is not new evidence, and its relationship with this case is doubtful, so it will not be accepted. Therefore, it was found that the facts of this case were consistent with those found in the first-instance judgment, so the appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld.
After reading this verdict, Sir Tao wanted to say: Selling bricks is risky, and you need to be careful when delivering goods, otherwise you will only be left with tears for moving bricks!
(The article is reproduced from Ceramic Information)
