On March 6, 2024, the plaintiff Wang placed an order with a sports equipment store operated by the defendant's sports equipment company on a certain online platform, and purchased an intelligent cycling platform for more than 29000 yuan. The product details page showed that the product specifications were "newly upgraded WIFI version".
After receiving the goods, Wang discovered during the unboxing and installation process that the cycling platform had defects such as unopened screw holes and other accessories. Subsequently, he discovered multiple paint repair points and damaged areas. Wang has repeatedly communicated with a sports equipment company to request a solution but has not been successful. Later, Wang filed a lawsuit with the court and applied for an appraisal of whether the cycling platform involved in the case was a second refurbished item. Entrusted by the court, the appraisal agency issued an appraisal opinion, clarifying that the riding platform involved in the case has undergone a second renovation and repainting, and the composition of the repainted coating is inconsistent with the original paint coating of the frame. There are characteristic points in the unpainted damage caused by handling and installation.
Wang believes that a certain sports equipment company, as the operator, sells goods that have undergone secondary renovation and are sold as "brand new" genuine products, which constitutes fraud. He demands the revocation of the sales contract, refund of the purchase price, and payment of three times the compensation, as well as compensation for appraisal fees and other rights protection expenses.
After trial, the court believes that the focus of the dispute in this case is whether the sale of the cycling platform by a certain sports equipment company constitutes fraud.
Firstly, regarding the factual determination of secondary renovation and repainting. The court held that although a certain sports equipment company argued that the touch up paint points belonged to the modification marks allowed by the limited craftsmanship level of a certain country and the quality inspection before leaving the factory, its submitted "Inspection Procedure" only stated that in specific circumstances (such as scratches/wear on the rudder tube and seat rod), a black permanent marker pen could be used for modification, and the scope of this operation was limited, and it did not involve touch up treatment for missing or damaged metal primer in multiple parts. Therefore, the court accepted the appraisal opinion and determined that there was a situation of "secondary renovation and repainting" of the cycling platform involved in the case.
Secondly, regarding the determination of fraud. The court believes that the determination of fraud by the operator should meet the following constitutive elements: the operator subjectively has the intention of fraud, objectively carries out the act of informing false information or concealing the true situation, and this act leads consumers into a wrong understanding and makes untrue expressions of intention. In this case, subjectively speaking, a certain sports equipment company, as a professional sports equipment seller, has a strict obligation to carefully inspect the quality of its products. The appraisal conclusion proves that there are multiple secondary refurbishment and repainting of the cycling platform, which is not a hidden and difficult to detect defect for professional operators. A sports equipment company argues that it is "unaware and imported in its original packaging without opening", but fails to provide sufficient evidence to prove that it has fulfilled its inspection obligations in accordance with trade practices when purchasing, nor can it reasonably explain why there are multiple refurbishment and repainting of new unopened products. The legitimate procurement channels are necessary conditions for genuine and brand new products, rather than sufficient conditions. Therefore, the court determined that a certain sports equipment company should have knowingly concealed the true situation regarding the refurbishment of the cycling platform during sales. Objectively speaking, a certain sports equipment company marked the goods involved in the case as "newly upgraded WIFI version" when selling them on the online platform, and did not disclose to Wang that the goods were refurbished or repainted. The concealment of the important fact that a certain sports equipment company's products have been refurbished and are not in a "brand new" state is enough to cause Wang to have a wrong understanding of the quality, performance, and value of the products, and make purchasing decisions based on this wrong understanding. The behavior of a certain sports equipment company has constituted concealment of the true situation of the products. In terms of causality, Wang paid the corresponding price to purchase the cycling platform involved in the case based on his trust in the "brand new" promotion of a sports equipment company. There is a causal relationship between the concealment behavior of a certain sports equipment company and Wang's purchasing behavior.
In summary, the court ruled: 1. Revoke the sales contract between the plaintiff Wang and the defendant a sports equipment company regarding the bicycle platform involved in the case; 2、 The plaintiff Wang returned the cycling platform involved in the case, and a sports equipment company also refunded the purchase price of more than 29000 yuan and paid three times the compensation of more than 88000 yuan; The appraisal fee of 27000 yuan will be borne by a certain sports equipment company.
After the first instance judgment, a certain sports equipment company appealed against the decision, but the second instance court rejected the appeal and upheld the original verdict.
This article is transferred from the WeChat official account "Shandong Gaofa". Thank you!