Building materials perspective, glass products in the transaction of quality inspection related issues.

The quality level and quality control of traditional forming building materials can generally be directly displayed in external representations such as shape, texture and color. As long as the buyer does his duty of reasonable care, there will be no situation in which the seller conceals the quality defects and defects of building materials products in the transaction.

Glass products are different from the traditional building materials production and processing process requirements, different material selection, ingredients, melting, forming, annealing and other processes, the production of glass product performance quality will be different, but generally not directly displayed in the external characterization of the product, often need to use the practice of testing. For example, tempered glass generally does not burst during delivery and installation, but tempered glass is a new type of glass material obtained by heating ordinary annealed glass to close to the softening point and then cooling it quickly and evenly, so the industry allows tempered glass. The self-explosion rate is between 1‰ and 3. The self-explosion of glass is not a quality item that can be inspected only by appearance at the time of receiving the goods. Therefore, the agreement and performance of quality inspection and warranty matters in the trading behavior of glass products is particularly important to promote transaction security.

A contract of sale is a contract in which the seller transfers ownership of the subject matter to the buyer and the buyer pays the price. The seller shall deliver the subject matter in accordance with the agreed quality requirements. If the purpose of the contract cannot be achieved because the subject matter does not meet the quality requirements, the buyer may refuse to accept the subject matter, terminate the contract or request to bear the liability for breach of contract. Before delivering glass products and necessary supporting materials to the buyer, the glass manufacturer shall, in accordance with the provisions of the Product Quality Law, ensure that the products to be delivered meet the quality requirements stipulated in the sales contract, test the safety performance indicators of the products delivered from the warehouse through the built-in product quality control and testing department of the enterprise or the appointed third-party quality inspection agency, and test whether they meet the specifications and models required by the buyer through the sales department. If the glass products delivered by the glass manufacturer and the necessary supporting facilities do not meet the requirements of the contract, the buyer shall have the right to claim liability for breach of contract.

According to the Civil Code, the buyer shall inspect the subject matter within the agreed inspection period when it receives it. If there is no agreed time limit for inspection, it shall be inspected in a timely manner. After receiving the glass products, the buyer shall be deemed to have completed the quality inspection. If there is an inspection period, the quality inspection shall be deemed to have been completed after the expiration of the inspection period. The buyer of glass products shall pay attention to the quality acceptance of the delivered goods before receiving the goods or before the expiration of the agreed quality inspection period, and if the quality problem is claimed within the time limit, the buyer shall bear the burden of proof of the quality problem.

Where the parties agree on an inspection period, the buyer shall, within the inspection period, notify the seller that the quantity or quality of the subject matter does not conform to the agreement. If the buyer fails to give notice, the quantity or quality of the subject matter shall be deemed to be in conformity with the agreement. The buyer of glass products shall conduct quality inspection within the inspection period stipulated in the contract, otherwise the products delivered by the glass manufacturer shall generally be deemed to conform to the quality agreement.

The court of first instance held that the quality of the products involved in the case. Qingdao Yaoyang Company requested Northern Glass Company to bear the liability for breach of contract on the grounds that the products involved in the case had suction cup prints, patterns and bubbles after installation and there were quality problems. Because both parties have a clear agreement on the quality problem when concluding the contract (written objection shall be raised to the supplier within 48 hours after receiving the product; Other quality problems of glass are considered inconsistent with the contract, A written objection shall be made to the supplier within 7 days of receipt of the product, otherwise the product quality shall be deemed to be in accordance with the contract),Qingdao Yaoyang Company did not raise a written objection to the product quality within the agreed period (on July 5, 2021, it sent photos through WeChat to inform the staff of North Glass Company that some glass had suction cup printing and could not be wiped off, and it was about half a year since the installation was completed). Considering the glass products involved in the case, if the above situation (suction cup printing) occurs, it can be seen intuitively, since the buyer cannot prove that the suction cup printing occurred only when the goods were received or during the installation process, and Qingdao Yaoyang Company has not provided sufficient evidence (the photos provided have neither date nor location) to prove its claim, neither the agreement between the two parties nor the certainty of the evidence can prove that the above quality problems exist in the products involved in the case provided by Northern Glass Company.Since it cannot be determined that the glass product has the above quality problems, it is not necessary to identify its quality.

The court of second instance held that with regard to the glass quality problem raised by the appellant Qingdao Yaoyang Company, the evidence submitted by the appellant in the second instance only showed the photos in WeChat, and there was no communication on the quality problem, and the call record did not have the record of the call content to confirm each other, so the content of the call could not be known. The "Glass Processing Contract" signed by both parties has clearly stipulated that "if the appellant thinks that the variety, configuration (model), specification and processing requirements of the product are inconsistent with the contract, he shall submit a written objection to the supplier within 48 hours after receiving the product; if he thinks that other quality problems of glass are inconsistent with the contract, he shall submit a written objection to the supplier within 7 days after receiving the product, otherwise, it is deemed that the product quality is in accordance with the contract, and the products delivered by the supplier fully meet the requirements of the order; the appellant shall first inspect the product variety, configuration (model), specification, processing requirements and surface quality before installing and using the product. If the appellant installs or uses the product, it shall be deemed that the product fully meets the requirements of the order". according to this,The appellant has no valid evidence to prove that he raised an objection to the glass quality within the time stipulated in the above contract.Moreover, the appellant alleges that the parties had been in communication between May 28, 2020 and October 29, 2020, but when the parties reconciled between December 25 and 28, 2020,The appellant Qingdao Yaoyang Company recognized the price of the goods received, the amount of damage and the purchase price paid, and did not put forward any opinions on the quality problems.Therefore, the court of first instance held that it was not improper to determine that the glass products had quality problems and that it was not necessary to conduct judicial appraisal. The appellant's counterclaim for the appellee to pay the loss of 52264.36 yuan for replacing the glass has no factual basis and the court will not support it.

If the parties have not agreed on an inspection period, the buyer shall notify the seller within a reasonable period of time after discovering or should have discovered that the quantity or quality of the subject matter does not conform to the agreement. If the buyer fails to notify the seller within a reasonable period of time or within two years from the date of receipt of the subject matter, the quantity or quality of the subject matter shall be deemed to be in conformity with the agreement. If the parties to the glass product transaction do not agree on the inspection period in the contract, the buyer shall notify the glass product within a reasonable period of time that the glass product does not conform to the agreement, and the reasonable period shall generally not exceed two years.

The Court believes that the focus of the dispute in this case is the cause of the quality problem of the goods delivered by the defendant Qinghai Qingbo Industrial Co., Ltd. The plaintiff Meng Fanpei demanded that the defendant Qinghai Qingbo Industrial Co., Ltd. return the purchase price of 52319 yuan, pay interest of 4127 yuan, compensate freight of 3200 yuan and labor cost of 8680 yuan. The plaintiff and the defendant have formed a sales contract relationship,However, the two parties did not agree on the time limit for the inspection of the goods. The defendant delivered the goods in accordance with the contract. The plaintiff should perform the inspection obligations of the buyer. In the trial, the plaintiff admitted that the goods were not inspected and used directly, and put forward the quality problems of the goods after one month of use. The plaintiff obviously failed to fulfill the inspection obligations and should bear the corresponding responsibilities;If the parties have not agreed on the inspection period, and the delivery note, confirmation note, etc. signed by the buyer indicate the quantity, model and specification of the subject matter, it is presumed that the buyer has inspected the quantity and appearance defects, except where there is relevant evidence sufficient to overturn the case.If the plaintiff signs the delivery order and fails to submit evidence sufficient to prove that there is a quality problem with the goods involved in the actual inspection case, it may be presumed that the inspection has been carried out and the goods delivered by the defendant shall be deemed to have no quality problem;In addition, according to the conclusion issued by the appraisal institution and the fact that the plaintiff proposed that there was a problem with the goods involved in the case one month after receiving the goods, the cause of the quality problem of the goods involved in the case could not be determined, and the plaintiff did not submit evidence to prove that the external attachment was caused by the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim was unfounded in law and the court did not support it.

The Court believes that the "Glass Processing Contract" and the "Correspondence Confirmation Letter" involved in the case are the true intentions of both parties, and the content is legal and valid. In this case, both parties confirmed that the brand of the products supplied by Xiangyun Company did not conform to the contract. Xiangyun Company argued that the brand change was approved by Xifei Company, which was not recognized by Xifei Company. In the opinion of this Court, first of all,Xiangyun Company has delivered all the products to the designated place of Xifei Company before June 5, 2019, and the brand and unit price of the products have been clearly indicated in the attached delivery note, and the relevant responsible personnel of Xifei Company have not raised any objection after signing for it.Secondly, on July 29, 2019, Xifei confirmed the amount of money owed to Xiangyun and did not raise any objection to the so-called brand discrepancy. And finally,As of August 19, 2021, when Xifei filed the lawsuit in this case, for more than two years, Xifei had not filed an objection or made a claim against Xiangyun for the so-called non-conformity of the supply brand.Based on the above situation, our hospital accepts Xiangyun Company's reply and does not support Xifei Company's claim for Xiangyun Company to pay the contract price difference of 240000 yuan. The court also did not support Xifei Company's claim for compensation of 27000 yuan for losses due to insufficient evidence.

Article 12 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of Law in the Trial of Disputes over Contracts of Sale (as amended in 2020) stipulates that when the People's Court specifically determines the "reasonable period" stipulated in Article 621, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code, the nature of the transaction between the parties, the purpose of the transaction, the mode of the transaction, the habits of the transaction, the type, quantity, nature, installation and use of the subject matter, the nature of the defect, the buyer's reasonable duty of care, the inspection method and the degree of difficulty, the specific environment of the buyer or the inspector, their own skills and other reasonable factors shall be judged on the basis of the principle of good faith.The "two years" stipulated in the second paragraph of Article 621 of the Civil Code is the longest reasonable period. The period shall remain unchanged, and the suspension, interruption or extension of the statute of limitations shall not apply. Defendant (counterclaim plaintiff) Zhang Huajun admitted that the glass installation was completed in the summer of 2018, admitted that visual inspection could distinguish tempered glass from non-tempered glass, argued that the full payment would be paid to the plaintiff (counterclaim defendant) in November 2020, and that the glass found in December 2020 did not meet the agreed standards, which was contrary to common sense and contrary to the provisions of judicial interpretation.The court cannot accept the defense opinion of the defendant (counterclaim plaintiff) Zhang Huajun's agreement to use tempered glass for all glass.

If the parties have not agreed on the inspection period, and the delivery note, confirmation note, etc. signed by the buyer indicate the quantity, model and specification of the subject matter, it is presumed that the buyer has inspected the quantity and appearance defects, unless there is relevant evidence sufficient to overturn it. If the buyer of glass products signs for the goods on site, it does not necessarily mean that the buyer has completed the quality inspection of the glass products. It is generally considered to be the inspection of quantity and appearance defects. The buyer still has a certain quality inspection period for the glass quality, but the buyer should still bear the burden of proof to prove that there are indeed quality problems.

The sale and purchase contract between Hongsen Glass Company and Shin Shin Ledao Company did not stipulate the period of glass inspection. However, the invoice signed by Shin Shin Ledao Company indicates the height * width and quantity of the subject matter. According to Article 623 of the Civil Code, the parties have not agreed on the inspection period. If the delivery note and confirmation note signed by the buyer indicate the quantity, model and specification of the subject matter, it is presumed that the buyer has inspected the quantity and appearance defects, unless there is relevant evidence sufficient to overturn it.Shin Shin Ledao did not provide sufficient evidence to overturn the appearance of the glass provided by Hongsen Glass Company.Shin Shin Ledao Company notified Hongsen Glass Company that the quality of the glass provided did not conform to the agreement. Wen Jing (shareholder of Shin Shin Ledao Company) said in response to the undertaker's inquiry in court that it proved whether the glass brand provided by Hongsen Glass Company was "Wuhu Xinyi", which could not be seen by naked eyes and must be tested. That is, it is a hidden flaw. Because some flaws in the glass are hidden, they cannot be found immediately and must be found by special inspection.The evidence provided by Shin Shin Ledao Company cannot prove that it requires the glass brand of Hongsen Glass Company to be "Wuhu Xinyi", nor can it provide evidence to prove that the glass quality provided by Hongsen Glass Company does not conform to the agreement, so its defense cannot be established and the court will not accept it.If Shin Shin Ledao Company suffers losses due to the non-conformity of the quality of the glass provided by Hongsen Glass Company, it may claim separately.

If both parties to the transaction have a quality assurance period for the subject matter, the quality assurance period shall apply. Although both quality inspection and quality assurance occur after the product is delivered and serve as a guarantee that the seller is qualified to perform its delivery obligations, they are applied in different orders and with different emphases. Quality assurance liability may arise only after the quality inspection procedure is preceded. Quality inspection focuses on whether the quality of the delivered product meets the transaction requirements at the time of delivery and during the inspection period, and quality assurance focuses on the service life benefits of the product quality after the delivery and inspection period. After the product is delivered, the quality of the product is integrated into the buyer's way of use and is no longer only subject to the seller's manufacturing process.

Both parties to the glass product transaction can make an agreement on the quality assurance responsibility of the product after the qualified delivery, clarify the quality assurance period, the choice of relief channels after the quality assurance problems, whether to allow the buyer as the user to repair or entrust a third party to repair the glass product problems and other matters. The above warranty period is freely agreed upon by both parties to the transaction and is generally longer than the quality inspection period.

If a defect in a product causes damage to another person, the infringed may claim compensation from the producer of the product or from the seller of the product. The quality inspection of glass products is not only important to fulfill the contractual obligation to deliver qualified goods to the buyer, but also to prevent tort liability arising from product quality defects as far as possible.

The Court believes that Article 41 of the the People's Republic of China Tort Liability Law stipulates: "If the product causes damage to others due to defects, the producer shall bear the tort liability." Article 43: "Where damage is caused by a defect in a product, the infringed may claim compensation from the producer of the product or from the seller of the product." According to the above provisions, Zhang Nanyi has the right to choose to require the producer to bear the liability. In this case,Combined with the product packaging logo provided by Zhang Nanzuo and the recording data provided by Zhang Nanzuo, it can be determined that Yuyuan Glass Factory is the producer of the products involved. In the case that Yuyuan Glass Factory did not provide evidence to prove that the product involved was a qualified product, the court of first instance ruled that Yuyuan Glass Factory was liable for compensation.With regard to Yuyuan Glass Factory's claim that it is not the producer of the products involved in the case, after several court trials since the accident, Yuyuan Glass Factory has failed to provide conclusive and sufficient evidence to prove that there are indeed other producers, the name of the producer and other relevant information of the products involved in the case. If it cannot provide evidence, the court will not support this claim.

The Court believes that the (2017) Yu 0181 Min Chu 5994 civil judgment and (2018) Yu 01 Min Zhong 10829 civil judgment that have become legally effective have been confirmed.The glass fiber reinforced plastic acid tank produced by the defendant had a fracture accident before the expiration date. The defendant did not provide evidence to prove that the fracture of the glass fiber reinforced plastic acid tank was caused by Hengyuan Company's own behavior, and Boda Company should bear the adverse consequences. The plaintiff was injured by the acid leakage of the glass fiber reinforced plastic acid tank, and the defendant should bear the tort liability. For the losses caused to the plaintiff, the defendant should bear all the civil liability for compensation.The defendant argued that the plaintiff and Hengyuan Company were at fault and should not bear full responsibility, but did not provide the corresponding evidence, so the court refused to accept it if its justification was insufficient.