To legally protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, rural contracted households, and other entities, and to enhance judicial guidance on cases related to product quality, on September 29, 2024, the Supreme People’s Court released six typical cases involving product quality. These cases cover aspects such as food safety protection, the quality protection of agricultural products, support for administrative agencies in exercising quality supervision rights, and the protection of the rights of victims of defective products. Below is a brief introduction to these cases and a summary of their typical significance.
Case 1: Victims of Defective Products Who Are Not Direct Purchasers Have the Right to Seek Compensation from the Manufacturer or Seller According to Law—Nai Moumou vs. Fireworks Specialty Store Product Liability Dispute
Basic Facts
In January 2021, Wu Moumou, a relative of Nai Moumou, purchased a batch of fireworks from a specialty fireworks store. During use, one box of fireworks displayed side spraying and tipping, resulting in injuries to Nai Moumou and others present. Nai Moumou suffered an injury to his right foot, was hospitalized for treatment, and stayed in the hospital for 49 days. As negotiations for compensation failed, Nai Moumou filed a lawsuit seeking compensation from the specialty fireworks store for medical expenses, nursing fees, nutritional expenses, meal allowances, and transportation fees, totaling over RMB 140,000.
Judgment
The court held that Article 13 of the Product Quality Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates: “Industrial products that may endanger human health and safety of persons or property must comply with national or industry standards that ensure the protection of human health and safety of persons or property. If there are no national or industry standards, they must meet the requirements of protecting human health and safety. It is prohibited to manufacture or sell industrial products that do not comply with standards and requirements that ensure safety. Specific management measures shall be prescribed by the State Council.” Article 43 stipulates: “If a defect in a product causes personal or property damage to others, the victim may seek compensation from the manufacturer or seller. If it is the manufacturer’s responsibility and the seller compensates the victim, the seller has the right to recover from the manufacturer. If it is the seller’s responsibility and the manufacturer compensates the victim, the manufacturer has the right to recover from the seller.” The national standard Safety and Quality of Fireworks and Firecrackers (GB10631-2013) clearly specifies that fireworks should not tip over during use and must meet requirements for launch angles. In this case, the fireworks involved exhibited side spraying and tipping, which did not meet national standards and constituted a quality defect. When a defective product causes personal or property damage, the victim is entitled to seek compensation from the manufacturer and seller. Victims include both those who directly purchase and use the defective product, as well as others who, though not direct purchasers, suffer damage from the defective product. Although Nai Moumou was not the direct purchaser, he was harmed by the product defect and thus had a factual and legal basis to seek compensation for personal injury. The court ruled that the specialty fireworks store should pay Nai Moumou over RMB 130,000 for medical expenses, nursing fees, nutritional expenses, meal allowances, transportation fees, and other losses.
Typical Significance
Product liability arises when a defect in a product results in personal or property damage, for which the manufacturer or seller is liable for compensation. In disputes involving defective products, the victims may include both direct purchasers and others harmed by the defective product. This case establishes that non-direct purchasers harmed by defective products have the right to seek compensation from the manufacturer or seller, which serves to encourage manufacturers to improve product quality, ensures that sellers sell qualified products, and protects the rights of victims.
Case 2: Selling Fertilizer with a Severe Discrepancy Between Active Ingredients and Packaging Labels Constitutes Consumer Fraud and Requires Punitive Compensation—Jing Mou vs. Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Wei Mou Product Liability Dispute
Basic Facts
In March 2022, Jing Mou needed to purchase fertilizer for planting watermelon seeds and bought 99 tons of potassium fertilizer from a Biotechnology Co., Ltd., paying a total of RMB 435,600. In March 2023, Jing Mou suspected that the reduced yield of the watermelons in 2022 was related to the use of this fertilizer and contacted the company, requesting a quality test of the potassium fertilizer. On March 28, 2023, the company and Jing Mou jointly entrusted a local product quality supervision and inspection institute to conduct the test. The test results showed that the water-soluble potassium oxide content was 27%, sulfur content was 12%, and chloride ion content was 13.1%, which did not meet the requirements of the national standard Potassium Sulfate for Agricultural Use (GB/T20406-2017) and was significantly inconsistent with the label on the packaging, which indicated potassium sulfate ≥51%, sulfur ≥17%, and chloride ion ≤1.5%. After multiple failed negotiations, Jing Mou sued, seeking a refund of the fertilizer payment and triple compensation.
Judgment
The court found that Article 27 of the Product Quality Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates: “The labeling of products or their packaging must be truthful and meet the following requirements: (1) have a product quality inspection certificate; (2) be labeled in Chinese with the product name, the name and address of the manufacturer; (3) indicate the product specifications, grade, and main ingredients’ names and content based on the characteristics and requirements of the product; (4) for products with a limited use period, the production date and expiration date should be clearly indicated in a prominent place; (5) products that may be damaged or may endanger human or property safety due to improper use should have warning labels or instructions in Chinese.” Article 36 stipulates: “The labeling of products sold by sellers must comply with the provisions of Article 27 of this Law”. The potassium fertilizer in question had a significant discrepancy between the actual content and the label, which violated the law. According to the Measures for Punishment of Acts that Infringe upon Consumer Rights issued by the State Administration for Market Regulation, selling products with false or misleading information constitutes fraud. In this case, the Biotechnology Co., Ltd., as the seller, did not provide accurate information about the product. Its sales of potassium fertilizer with discrepancies between actual ingredient content and the label misled consumers, constituting fraud. Based on the Consumer Rights Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China, the court ruled that the company should refund the payment and pay triple compensation.
Typical Significance
The punitive compensation system for consumer fraud aims to punish deceptive practices, deter other businesses, and prevent fraud, thus improving the market environment. In this case, the agricultural input supplier sold fertilizer products that significantly deviated from national standards, which constituted fraud. The court applied the “refund plus triple compensation” punitive compensation mechanism, effectively safeguarding farmers’ legitimate rights.
Case 3: Operators Who Fail to Fulfill Quality Inspection Obligations When Selling Fake Seeds Should Be Held Liable—Seed Market vs. County Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau Administrative Penalty Case
Basic Facts
In January 2022, the Agricultural Law Enforcement Team of a county’s Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau conducted a quality supervision inspection of crop seeds sold by a seed market. The test results showed that the tested samples differed from the standard samples of approved varieties collected by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. The county’s Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau initiated an investigation against the seed market for allegedly selling fake seeds. The investigation revealed that the seed market was indeed selling fake seeds. In July 2022, the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau imposed an administrative penalty on the seed market, confiscating 122 bags of fake seeds, seizing illegal proceeds, and imposing a fine of over RMB 580,000 RMB. The seed market disagreed with the penalty, arguing that as a retailer, it had no obligation to verify the quality and authenticity of the seeds and that it was not at fault. The seed market then filed an administrative lawsuit, seeking to overturn the penalty decision.
Judgment
The court held that the county’s Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau, as the governmental authority responsible for managing crop seed work within its jurisdiction, has a legal duty to impose administrative penalties for violations in seed breeding, production, operation, and management. Article 48 of the Seed Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates that producing or selling fake or inferior seeds is prohibited. The second paragraph of this article specifies that seeds whose variety or type does not match the label or that have no label are considered fake seeds. The seed market, as a seller, sold seeds with inaccurate information about production licenses and certification details. Selling fake seeds is a legally prohibited act, and verifying the information on seed labels is the duty of seed sellers. The seed market failed to meet this obligation. The county Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau considered the nature and consequences of the violation, the value of the illegal goods, and the quantity of the fake seeds before issuing the penalty. The court found that the procedure followed was lawful, and the penalty was not excessive. Therefore, it ruled to dismiss the seed market’s claim.
Typical Significance
To ensure food security and agricultural ecological safety, activities related to seed production and marketing must be strictly managed. The Seed Law clearly prohibits the production and sale of fake or inferior seeds, and seed sellers are required to verify the labels on the seeds they sell. If they fail to do so, they will bear legal responsibility. This judgment provides guidance for seed sellers to comply with regulations and protect farmers’ rights.
Case 4: Operators Are Not Exempt from Liability for Damage Caused by Defective Products Even If the Warranty Period Has Expired—Tan Moumou vs. Agricultural Machinery Sales Co., Ltd. Product Liability Dispute
Basic Facts
On May 18, 2021, Tan Moumou purchased a combine harvester from an agricultural machinery sales company, paying RMB 280,000, with a warranty period of 12 months. On September 16, 2022, the harvester caught fire. The local fire department investigated and concluded that the fire originated from the rear side of the harvester due to an electrical wiring fault, which ignited surrounding combustible materials. At the time of the incident, the harvester had been in use for 16 months. An evaluation report prepared by a court-appointed assessment agency estimated the fire-related losses for Tan Moumou at RMB 202,200. After failed negotiations, Tan Moumou sued the company for compensation for the loss.
Judgment
The court held that Article 1202 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China stipulates: “Manufacturers are liable for damages caused by product defects”. Article 1203 states: “If a defect in a product causes harm to others, the victim may seek compensation from either the manufacturer or the seller. If the defect is caused by the manufacturer, the seller who compensates the victim may recover from the manufacturer, and vice versa.” Although the combine harvester in question had been in use for 16 months, the fire was caused by a dangerous defect in the electrical wiring, posing a threat to safety, and thus qualifies as a product defect. This defect does not exempt the manufacturer from liability due to the expiration of the warranty period. The court ruled that the agricultural machinery sales company should compensate Tan Moumou for RMB 202,200.
Typical Significance
This case involves product liability for agricultural machinery defects. The judgment clarifies that even if a product has exceeded its warranty period, the manufacturer remains liable if the product has defects that pose serious safety risks. This is significant for safeguarding the rights of farmers and protecting agricultural production.
Case 5: Production and Sale of Food Products That Fail to Meet Safety Standards Constitutes a Crime, and Criminal Responsibility Must Be Assumed—Xie Mou’s Case of Producing and Selling Unsafe Food Products
Basic Facts
In July 2021, defendant Xie Mou operated a roast duck shop, primarily selling cold dishes and marinated cooked food. During a promotional event, due to low prices, there was a high volume of purchases, and the sales window remained open despite high indoor temperatures, leading to bacterial growth in food products. Some ingredients exceeded their shelf life. Many consumers who purchased and consumed these items felt unwell, with more than 10 experiencing food poisoning symptoms and requiring hospitalization. Tests conducted on 40 samples collected that day showed 11 batches of cold dishes containing Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus, with 17 batches exceeding limits for Staphylococcus aureus. Nitrite levels in chicken wings and roast duck were found to be significantly above safe limits. On April 18, 2022, Xie Mou voluntarily turned himself in and confessed his crimes. The prosecution filed a lawsuit against him.
Judgment
The court held that Xie Mou’s production and sale of food products that failed to meet safety standards posed a serious threat to human health, causing food poisoning symptoms in over 10 individuals. His actions constituted the crime of producing and selling food products that fail to meet safety standards. Considering his voluntary surrender, admission of guilt, and compensation efforts, the court reduced his punishment, sentencing him to one year of imprisonment and a fine of RMB 20,000.
Typical Significance
Food safety is crucial for protecting the health and safety of consumers. Operators must strictly adhere to food safety laws, regulations, and standards, prioritizing consumers’ well-being. In this case, the producer’s sale of food with seriously unsafe levels of contaminants resulted in illness among multiple consumers and led to criminal prosecution, serving as an effective deterrent and educational example for other food operators.
Case 6: Air Conditioner Manufacturers Are Liable for Losses Caused by Product Defects—Milk Powder Store vs. Air Conditioner Co., Ltd. Product Liability Dispute
Basic Facts
A milk powder store installed a standing air conditioner produced by a certain air conditioning company. In July 2022, a fire broke out in the store. The county fire department’s investigation concluded that the fire originated in the northeastern corner of the milk powder store, at the location of the standing air conditioner, and that the fire was caused by an electrical fault in the air conditioner. The milk powder store filed a lawsuit seeking compensation of over RMB 600,000 RMB for damages to goods, building repair costs, losses during the suspension of operations, and compensation to others.
Judgment
The court held that the fire accident investigation conducted by the county fire department, which concluded that the fire was caused by an electrical fault in the air conditioner, provided evidence that the air conditioner had a quality defect. This defect was causally related to the damages suffered. The air conditioning company, as the manufacturer of the defective product, was held liable for the losses incurred by the milk powder store due to the fire. The court awarded the milk powder store compensation of over RMB 400,000 based on the actual losses.
Typical Significance
The legal principle that manufacturers must compensate for losses caused by defective products aims to encourage manufacturers to strengthen product quality control and management. This case’s judgment, which holds the air conditioning manufacturer accountable for the damage caused by its defective product, serves as a warning to prevent unlawful production practices and safeguard consumers’ legal rights.
Case 1: Victims of Defective Products Who Are Not Direct Purchasers Have the Right to Seek Compensation from the Manufacturer or Seller According to Law—Nai Moumou vs. Fireworks Specialty Store Product Liability Dispute
Basic Facts
In January 2021, Wu Moumou, a relative of Nai Moumou, purchased a batch of fireworks from a specialty fireworks store. During use, one box of fireworks displayed side spraying and tipping, resulting in injuries to Nai Moumou and others present. Nai Moumou suffered an injury to his right foot, was hospitalized for treatment, and stayed in the hospital for 49 days. As negotiations for compensation failed, Nai Moumou filed a lawsuit seeking compensation from the specialty fireworks store for medical expenses, nursing fees, nutritional expenses, meal allowances, and transportation fees, totaling over RMB 140,000.
Judgment
The court held that Article 13 of the Product Quality Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates: “Industrial products that may endanger human health and safety of persons or property must comply with national or industry standards that ensure the protection of human health and safety of persons or property. If there are no national or industry standards, they must meet the requirements of protecting human health and safety. It is prohibited to manufacture or sell industrial products that do not comply with standards and requirements that ensure safety. Specific management measures shall be prescribed by the State Council.” Article 43 stipulates: “If a defect in a product causes personal or property damage to others, the victim may seek compensation from the manufacturer or seller. If it is the manufacturer’s responsibility and the seller compensates the victim, the seller has the right to recover from the manufacturer. If it is the seller’s responsibility and the manufacturer compensates the victim, the manufacturer has the right to recover from the seller.” The national standard Safety and Quality of Fireworks and Firecrackers (GB10631-2013) clearly specifies that fireworks should not tip over during use and must meet requirements for launch angles. In this case, the fireworks involved exhibited side spraying and tipping, which did not meet national standards and constituted a quality defect. When a defective product causes personal or property damage, the victim is entitled to seek compensation from the manufacturer and seller. Victims include both those who directly purchase and use the defective product, as well as others who, though not direct purchasers, suffer damage from the defective product. Although Nai Moumou was not the direct purchaser, he was harmed by the product defect and thus had a factual and legal basis to seek compensation for personal injury. The court ruled that the specialty fireworks store should pay Nai Moumou over RMB 130,000 for medical expenses, nursing fees, nutritional expenses, meal allowances, transportation fees, and other losses.
Typical Significance
Product liability arises when a defect in a product results in personal or property damage, for which the manufacturer or seller is liable for compensation. In disputes involving defective products, the victims may include both direct purchasers and others harmed by the defective product. This case establishes that non-direct purchasers harmed by defective products have the right to seek compensation from the manufacturer or seller, which serves to encourage manufacturers to improve product quality, ensures that sellers sell qualified products, and protects the rights of victims.
Case 2: Selling Fertilizer with a Severe Discrepancy Between Active Ingredients and Packaging Labels Constitutes Consumer Fraud and Requires Punitive Compensation—Jing Mou vs. Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Wei Mou Product Liability Dispute
Basic Facts
In March 2022, Jing Mou needed to purchase fertilizer for planting watermelon seeds and bought 99 tons of potassium fertilizer from a Biotechnology Co., Ltd., paying a total of RMB 435,600. In March 2023, Jing Mou suspected that the reduced yield of the watermelons in 2022 was related to the use of this fertilizer and contacted the company, requesting a quality test of the potassium fertilizer. On March 28, 2023, the company and Jing Mou jointly entrusted a local product quality supervision and inspection institute to conduct the test. The test results showed that the water-soluble potassium oxide content was 27%, sulfur content was 12%, and chloride ion content was 13.1%, which did not meet the requirements of the national standard Potassium Sulfate for Agricultural Use (GB/T20406-2017) and was significantly inconsistent with the label on the packaging, which indicated potassium sulfate ≥51%, sulfur ≥17%, and chloride ion ≤1.5%. After multiple failed negotiations, Jing Mou sued, seeking a refund of the fertilizer payment and triple compensation.
Judgment
The court found that Article 27 of the Product Quality Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates: “The labeling of products or their packaging must be truthful and meet the following requirements: (1) have a product quality inspection certificate; (2) be labeled in Chinese with the product name, the name and address of the manufacturer; (3) indicate the product specifications, grade, and main ingredients’ names and content based on the characteristics and requirements of the product; (4) for products with a limited use period, the production date and expiration date should be clearly indicated in a prominent place; (5) products that may be damaged or may endanger human or property safety due to improper use should have warning labels or instructions in Chinese.” Article 36 stipulates: “The labeling of products sold by sellers must comply with the provisions of Article 27 of this Law”. The potassium fertilizer in question had a significant discrepancy between the actual content and the label, which violated the law. According to the Measures for Punishment of Acts that Infringe upon Consumer Rights issued by the State Administration for Market Regulation, selling products with false or misleading information constitutes fraud. In this case, the Biotechnology Co., Ltd., as the seller, did not provide accurate information about the product. Its sales of potassium fertilizer with discrepancies between actual ingredient content and the label misled consumers, constituting fraud. Based on the Consumer Rights Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China, the court ruled that the company should refund the payment and pay triple compensation.
Typical Significance
The punitive compensation system for consumer fraud aims to punish deceptive practices, deter other businesses, and prevent fraud, thus improving the market environment. In this case, the agricultural input supplier sold fertilizer products that significantly deviated from national standards, which constituted fraud. The court applied the “refund plus triple compensation” punitive compensation mechanism, effectively safeguarding farmers’ legitimate rights.
Case 3: Operators Who Fail to Fulfill Quality Inspection Obligations When Selling Fake Seeds Should Be Held Liable—Seed Market vs. County Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau Administrative Penalty Case
Basic Facts
In January 2022, the Agricultural Law Enforcement Team of a county’s Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau conducted a quality supervision inspection of crop seeds sold by a seed market. The test results showed that the tested samples differed from the standard samples of approved varieties collected by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. The county’s Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau initiated an investigation against the seed market for allegedly selling fake seeds. The investigation revealed that the seed market was indeed selling fake seeds. In July 2022, the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau imposed an administrative penalty on the seed market, confiscating 122 bags of fake seeds, seizing illegal proceeds, and imposing a fine of over RMB 580,000 RMB. The seed market disagreed with the penalty, arguing that as a retailer, it had no obligation to verify the quality and authenticity of the seeds and that it was not at fault. The seed market then filed an administrative lawsuit, seeking to overturn the penalty decision.
Judgment
The court held that the county’s Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau, as the governmental authority responsible for managing crop seed work within its jurisdiction, has a legal duty to impose administrative penalties for violations in seed breeding, production, operation, and management. Article 48 of the Seed Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates that producing or selling fake or inferior seeds is prohibited. The second paragraph of this article specifies that seeds whose variety or type does not match the label or that have no label are considered fake seeds. The seed market, as a seller, sold seeds with inaccurate information about production licenses and certification details. Selling fake seeds is a legally prohibited act, and verifying the information on seed labels is the duty of seed sellers. The seed market failed to meet this obligation. The county Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau considered the nature and consequences of the violation, the value of the illegal goods, and the quantity of the fake seeds before issuing the penalty. The court found that the procedure followed was lawful, and the penalty was not excessive. Therefore, it ruled to dismiss the seed market’s claim.
Typical Significance
To ensure food security and agricultural ecological safety, activities related to seed production and marketing must be strictly managed. The Seed Law clearly prohibits the production and sale of fake or inferior seeds, and seed sellers are required to verify the labels on the seeds they sell. If they fail to do so, they will bear legal responsibility. This judgment provides guidance for seed sellers to comply with regulations and protect farmers’ rights.
Case 4: Operators Are Not Exempt from Liability for Damage Caused by Defective Products Even If the Warranty Period Has Expired—Tan Moumou vs. Agricultural Machinery Sales Co., Ltd. Product Liability Dispute
Basic Facts
On May 18, 2021, Tan Moumou purchased a combine harvester from an agricultural machinery sales company, paying RMB 280,000, with a warranty period of 12 months. On September 16, 2022, the harvester caught fire. The local fire department investigated and concluded that the fire originated from the rear side of the harvester due to an electrical wiring fault, which ignited surrounding combustible materials. At the time of the incident, the harvester had been in use for 16 months. An evaluation report prepared by a court-appointed assessment agency estimated the fire-related losses for Tan Moumou at RMB 202,200. After failed negotiations, Tan Moumou sued the company for compensation for the loss.
Judgment
The court held that Article 1202 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China stipulates: “Manufacturers are liable for damages caused by product defects”. Article 1203 states: “If a defect in a product causes harm to others, the victim may seek compensation from either the manufacturer or the seller. If the defect is caused by the manufacturer, the seller who compensates the victim may recover from the manufacturer, and vice versa.” Although the combine harvester in question had been in use for 16 months, the fire was caused by a dangerous defect in the electrical wiring, posing a threat to safety, and thus qualifies as a product defect. This defect does not exempt the manufacturer from liability due to the expiration of the warranty period. The court ruled that the agricultural machinery sales company should compensate Tan Moumou for RMB 202,200.
Typical Significance
This case involves product liability for agricultural machinery defects. The judgment clarifies that even if a product has exceeded its warranty period, the manufacturer remains liable if the product has defects that pose serious safety risks. This is significant for safeguarding the rights of farmers and protecting agricultural production.
Case 5: Production and Sale of Food Products That Fail to Meet Safety Standards Constitutes a Crime, and Criminal Responsibility Must Be Assumed—Xie Mou’s Case of Producing and Selling Unsafe Food Products
Basic Facts
In July 2021, defendant Xie Mou operated a roast duck shop, primarily selling cold dishes and marinated cooked food. During a promotional event, due to low prices, there was a high volume of purchases, and the sales window remained open despite high indoor temperatures, leading to bacterial growth in food products. Some ingredients exceeded their shelf life. Many consumers who purchased and consumed these items felt unwell, with more than 10 experiencing food poisoning symptoms and requiring hospitalization. Tests conducted on 40 samples collected that day showed 11 batches of cold dishes containing Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus, with 17 batches exceeding limits for Staphylococcus aureus. Nitrite levels in chicken wings and roast duck were found to be significantly above safe limits. On April 18, 2022, Xie Mou voluntarily turned himself in and confessed his crimes. The prosecution filed a lawsuit against him.
Judgment
The court held that Xie Mou’s production and sale of food products that failed to meet safety standards posed a serious threat to human health, causing food poisoning symptoms in over 10 individuals. His actions constituted the crime of producing and selling food products that fail to meet safety standards. Considering his voluntary surrender, admission of guilt, and compensation efforts, the court reduced his punishment, sentencing him to one year of imprisonment and a fine of RMB 20,000.
Typical Significance
Food safety is crucial for protecting the health and safety of consumers. Operators must strictly adhere to food safety laws, regulations, and standards, prioritizing consumers’ well-being. In this case, the producer’s sale of food with seriously unsafe levels of contaminants resulted in illness among multiple consumers and led to criminal prosecution, serving as an effective deterrent and educational example for other food operators.
Case 6: Air Conditioner Manufacturers Are Liable for Losses Caused by Product Defects—Milk Powder Store vs. Air Conditioner Co., Ltd. Product Liability Dispute
Basic Facts
A milk powder store installed a standing air conditioner produced by a certain air conditioning company. In July 2022, a fire broke out in the store. The county fire department’s investigation concluded that the fire originated in the northeastern corner of the milk powder store, at the location of the standing air conditioner, and that the fire was caused by an electrical fault in the air conditioner. The milk powder store filed a lawsuit seeking compensation of over RMB 600,000 RMB for damages to goods, building repair costs, losses during the suspension of operations, and compensation to others.
Judgment
The court held that the fire accident investigation conducted by the county fire department, which concluded that the fire was caused by an electrical fault in the air conditioner, provided evidence that the air conditioner had a quality defect. This defect was causally related to the damages suffered. The air conditioning company, as the manufacturer of the defective product, was held liable for the losses incurred by the milk powder store due to the fire. The court awarded the milk powder store compensation of over RMB 400,000 based on the actual losses.
Typical Significance
The legal principle that manufacturers must compensate for losses caused by defective products aims to encourage manufacturers to strengthen product quality control and management. This case’s judgment, which holds the air conditioning manufacturer accountable for the damage caused by its defective product, serves as a warning to prevent unlawful production practices and safeguard consumers’ legal rights.