Ignoring the acceptance of a company in Guangzhou to return the right to exercise the right to return to pay the tail

Acceptance is the subject of the right to receive the subject matter is also its obligation, in the transfer of the subject matter for a variety of reasons, if ignored, the acceptance of the work, once a dispute, the quality of the dispute has become the main focus of controversy. This is not a lighting company equipment ordering in a machinery company, not in the installation and debugging of equipment on the reception of the equipment after the equipment is found quality problems and disputes, the court.

Cause: the court refused to request a return

In November 12, 2009, Guangzhou Lighting Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the lighting company) and Qingdao Machinery Manufacturing Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as machinery company) signed a purchase contract, agreed to buy machinery and Lighting Company Ltd. at a price of 363000 yuan a cleaning equipment, and agreed to pay for 10% of the payment into reserve equipment the installation and acceptance within 12 months, and the need to provide a valid invoice machinery company as the premise, and the need of the list of goods confirmed by both parties. At the same time, the two sides on the acceptance of goods also made a detailed agreement.

Since then, the lighting company to pay 217800 yuan. In February 8, 2010, machinery company before delivery invoice the goods to lighting company factory, and lighting company did not make any debugging case the goods will be accepted after its preliminary inspection of the equipment and the rough surface rust, identified by the technical inspection personnel, the equipment is not consistent with the standard of product quality the contract, which can not meet production requirements. In March 19th of the same year, the company sent a letter to the letter of the company asked to do the return processing, but was rejected. See spend money to naught, the company will light machinery company to court, asked the two sides signed the purchase contract, and demanded the return of 217800 yuan of money and interest paid, and the economic loss of 83426 yuan.

First instance: the right to exercise the right to return unsuccessful

"Our company is in strict accordance with the contract manufacturing equipment and sent to the lighting company, agreed in the contract, the goods to the specifications and quantity of lighting companies to deal with the variety of products, inspection, and timely organize personnel to participate in the training, by the company responsible for the free on-site technical training until the normal operation of the equipment, which I the company responsible for product installation, commissioning and technical support. In fact, our company will be sent to the equipment, lighting company is not in accordance with the contract for acceptance, but refused to my company for the installation and debugging, and to "quality unwarranted" request a return. In the absence of installation conditions, how to determine whether the equipment there are serious quality problems? Besides, lighting company has not paid the balance! "Machinery company argued, and filed a counterclaim to the court, requesting the court to order the lighting company to pay the remaining payment of 145200 yuan and 48852 yuan of liquidated damages. "Clearly constitutes a breach of contract machinery company, its obligations not fulfilled, how can we pay, and my company with the use of equipment, according to the equipment provided drawings commissioned the construction of special facilities, and paid 48301 yuan construction fee, this is not keep the equipment cost, machinery company counterclaim should not be supported. The company said it had submitted to the court a contract for the construction of the third party, the construction of the invoices and check stubs, as well as the lease contract, warehousing agreements and invoices to prove their losses. At the same time, the lighting company to the court to apply for the identification of equipment quality. "I do not agree with the company. Equipment has not been installed, the company can not rely solely on speculation that the equipment has a quality problem, in this case, it does not meet the conditions for the start of the identification process. In fact, the company asked for the return of the reasons for their imports of similar equipment from abroad, rather than the quality of our company's equipment is not qualified. Mechanical company said.

Seeing the lighting company: "quality objection put forward not resigned to playing second fiddle and return not to product installation conditions, quality identification is the key to find out the facts of the case, the court shall be permitted, and our company is not to cancel the purchase of foreign equipment and machinery company's contract, the opposite is because the equipment is not up to the requirements of production, I in order to schedule and other reasons to separately purchase foreign equipment. "

The court held that the two sides signed a procurement contract and technical agreement shall be maintained, the parties should fully fulfill their obligations. The controversial focus of the case for the machinery company constitutes a fundamental breach of contract, sufficient to lead to the lifting of the contract. According to the facts found in the trial, the company will be shipped to the mechanical equipment has not been installed after lighting company, lighting company only by visual observation that there are serious quality problems based on the lack of equipment, also do not have the conditions for quality appraisal, to safeguard the security of transactions, the parties shall not terminate the contract freely. Therefore, the company's lawsuit does not support the court.

Due to the reasons for the company's lighting equipment has not been installed and commissioning, equipment commissioning should not be used as a condition of its non payment, the company asked the company to pay the remaining claims of the court to support the purchase of goods. The contract also agreed the invoice is the premise of lighting company payment, and machinery company has not yet delivered the invoice, so the requirements of lighting machinery company company to assume the late payment penalty claims court shall not support machinery company shall deliver the invoice in the lighting company payment equipment. In summary, the court dismissed the claims of the lighting company, and asked to pay 145200 yuan for the tail of the equipment. At the same time, rejected the company's other counterclaim request.

Second instance: