Copyright 2014 by Stanford University

ZHANG Li

v.

Beijing Heli Huatong Automobile Service Co., Ltd.,

A Sale and Purchase Contract Dispute

Guiding Case No. 17

(Discussed and Passed by the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme People’s Court

Released on November 8, 2013)

CHINA GUIDING CASES PROJECT

English Guiding Case (EGC17)

February 4, 2014 Edition*

* The citation of this translation of the Guiding Case is: 《张莉诉北京合力华通汽车服务有限公司买卖合

同纠纷案》(ZHANG Li v. Beijing Heli Huatong Automobile Service Co., Ltd., A Sale and Purchase Contract

Dispute), CHINA GUIDING CASES PROJECT, English Guiding Case (EGC17), Feb. 4, 2014 Edition, available at

http://cgc.law.stanford.edu/guiding-cases/guiding-case-17.

This document was primarily prepared by JIANG Runzhou, LIANG Lili, Lisa Lin, Michael Schmale, and

SUN Yayuan. The document was finalized by Alyssa King, Jordan Corrente Beck, Dimitri Phillips, and Dr. Mei

Gechlik. Minor editing, such as splitting long paragraphs, adding a few words included in square brackets, and

boldfacing the headings to correspond with those boldfaced in the original Chinese version, was done to make the

piece more comprehensible to readers. The following text, otherwise, is a direct translation of the original text and

reflects formatting of the Chinese document released by the Supreme People’s Court.

The following Guiding Case was discussed and passed by the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme

People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China and was released on November 8, 2013, available at

http://www.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2013/11/id/1150419.shtml. See also 最高人民法院关于发布第五批指导

性案例的通知 (The Supreme People’s Court’s Notice Concerning the Release of the Fifth Batch of Guiding Cases),

Nov. 8, 2013, available at http://www.chinacourt.org/law/detail/2013/11/id/147238.shtml.

2014.02.04 Edition

Copyright 2014 by Stanford University

2

Keywords

Civil Sale and Purchase Contract Fraud Family Car

Main Points of the Adjudication

1. Where cars are purchased [to meet] consumption needs in family life, fraud disputes

occurring in [these purchases] may be handled pursuant to the Law of the People’s Republic of

China on Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests.

2. [If] a car seller promises to sell a new car that has not been used or repaired to a

consumer, [but] after purchase, the consumer discovers that the car has been used or repaired,

[and] the seller cannot prove that he1 has performed his duty of disclosure and that [the

performance] has been acknowledged by the consumer, [this] constitutes sales fraud. [If] the

consumer demands that the seller compensate his losses in accordance with the Law on

Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests, the people’s court should offer support.

Related Legal Rule(s)

Article 2 and Article 55, Paragraph 1 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on

Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests ([Article 55, Paragraph 1] was revised on October

25, 2013 and was Article 49 before the revision)

Basic Facts of the Case

On February 28, 2007, plaintiff ZHANG Li (张莉) purchased a Shanghai General Motors

Chevrolet Epica sedan from defendant Beijing Heli Huatong Automobile Service Co., Ltd. (北京

合力华通汽车服务有限公司) (hereinafter referred to as “Heli Huatong Company”) at the price

of RMB 138,000. The two parties signed an Automobile Sales Contract. Article 7 of the

contract stipulated:

. . . The seller guarantees that the vehicle purchased by the buyer is a new car that

has gone through necessary inspection and cleaning before delivery, [that] the

vehicle odometer reads 18 kilometers, [and that the vehicle] conforms with all the

specifications and indicators listed in those documents that the seller provided to

1 Translators’ note: “he” and “his” as used herein are, unless the context indicates otherwise, gender-neutral

terms that also refer to “she”, “her”, and “it”.

2014.02.04 Edition

Copyright 2014 by Stanford University

3

the buyer and that were delivered with the car . . .

On the day the contract was signed, ZHANG Li paid Heli Huatong Company the vehicle

purchase price of RMB 138,000, [and] at the same time paid the vehicle purchase tax of RMB

12,400, a one-package service fee2 of RMB 500, and an insurance premium of RMB 6,060. On

the same day, Heli Huatong Company delivered a Chevrolet Epica sedan to ZHANG Li, [and]

ZHANG Li completed the motor vehicle registration procedure for the car. On May 13, 2007,

when ZHANG Li sent the vehicle to Heli Huatong Company for maintenance, [she] discovered

that the car had undergone repairs on January 17, 2007.

In the course of handling [the case], Heli Huatong Company stated that the vehicle

purchased by ZHANG Li indeed had accrued scratches in transit [and] had undergone repairs on

January 17, 2007. The repair items included spray painting the right front fender, spray painting

the right front door, spray painting the right rear fender, sheet metal processing of the right front

door, sheet metal processing of the right rear fender, and sheet metal processing of the right front

fender. During the repair, the side sill clips, fuel tank door, and front fender lamp assembly3

were replaced. The person who sent [the vehicle] for repair was an employee of [Heli Huatong

Company]. Heli Huatong Company stated that, as for the matter of the vehicle having once

undergone repairs, [the company had] clearly informed ZHANG Li during the sale and also, in

accordance with this [fact], offered a relatively large discount. The sales price of the vehicle

should have been RMB 151,900. After negotiations, the actual sales price of the vehicle was

RMB 138,000, and some decorations were offered for free. To prove the aforementioned facts,

Heli Huatong Company provided vehicle maintenance records and a vehicle delivery checklist

with ZHANG Li’s signature dated February 28, 2007. In the remarks column of the vehicle

delivery checklist, there was written:

The car has been 1/4 refueled. The right side of the car had sheet metal and spray

paint repairs [and the car] is sold at the agreed price.

Heli Huatong Company expressed that the delivery checklist was kept by the company, [and

that] ZHANG Li did not have this checklist in her hands.4 With regard to the aforementioned

two pieces of evidence provided by Heli Huatong Company, ZHANG Li stated [that she] did not

have objections to the vehicle maintenance records, [and confirmed that] the signature on the

vehicle delivery checklist was indeed her signature. However, [she claimed that] during the sale,

Heli Huatong Company failed to inform [her] that the vehicle had undergone repairs, [and that]

when she signed [the checklist], the remarks column did not have the words, “The right side of

the car had sheet metal and spray paint repairs [and the car] is sold at the agreed price.”

2 Translators’ note: the term “一条龙服务费” translated here as “one-package service fee” suggests that the

fee covers a series of services the details of which are not clear from the original text. 3 Translators’ note: the term “板灯总成” translated here as “lamp assembly” refers to the entire headlamp or

taillight unit of a car, as opposed to just the bulb, the reflector, or the covering. 4 Translators’ note: while the phrase “手中” literally translates to “in [her] hands”, here it likely means “in

[her] possession”.

2014.02.04 Edition

Copyright 2014 by Stanford University

4

Results of the Adjudication

In October 2007, the Chaoyang District People’s Court of Beijing Municipality rendered

the (2007) Chao Min Chu Zi No. 18230 Civil Judgment:

1. [The court] rescinds the Automobile Sales Contract signed by ZHANG Li and Heli

Huatong Company on February 28, 2007.

2. [The court orders] ZHANG Li to return her purchased Chevrolet Epica sedan to Heli

Huatong Company within seven days after the judgment comes into effect.

3. [The court orders] Heli Huatong Company to return the vehicle purchase amount of

one hundred and twenty-four thousand and two hundred yuan to ZHANG Li within seven

days after the judgment comes into effect.

4. [The court orders] Heli Huatong Company to compensate ZHANG Li the purchase tax

of twelve thousand and four hundred yuan, the service fee of five hundred yuan, and the

insurance premium of six thousand and sixty yuan within seven days after the judgment

comes into effect.

5. [The court orders] Heli Huatong Company to pay ZHANG Li a compensation that

doubles the vehicle purchase amount, which is one hundred and thirty-eight thousand

yuan, within seven days after the judgment comes into effect.

6. [The court] rejects ZHANG Li’s other litigation claims.

After the judgment was pronounced, Heli Huatong Company appealed. On March 13, 2008, the

No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court of Beijing Municipality rendered the (2008) Er Zhong Min

Zhong Zi No. 00453 Civil Judgment: [the court] rejects the appeal and upholds the original

judgment.

Reasons for the Adjudication

In the effective judgment, the court opined:5 plaintiff ZHANG Li purchased the car for

personal use [to meet] the needs of [daily] life. Defendant Heli Huatong Company did not have

evidence to prove that ZHANG Li purchased the car for business operation or other consumption

unrelated to the needs of [daily] life. Thus, ZHANG Li’s act of purchasing the car was a type of

consumption necessary to [daily] life, [and] the Law of the People’s Republic of China on

Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests should apply.

5 Translators’ note: the Chinese text does not specify which court opined. Given the context, this should be

the No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court of Beijing Municipality.

2014.02.04 Edition

Copyright 2014 by Stanford University

5

In accordance with the stipulations in the Automobile Sales Contract signed by both

parties, the vehicle delivered to ZHANG Li by Heli Huatong Company should be a new car

without maintenance records, [but] the vehicle sold had in fact undergone repairs before delivery.

These were the facts that both parties acknowledged, [and] thus the focus of this dispute was

whether or not Heli Huatong Company had performed its duty of disclosure beforehand.

Lowering sales prices of vehicles or [offering] discounts and providing complimentary

decorations were sales strategies commonly used by sellers. [Both were done here] as the result

of the parties’ negotiations. [Nonetheless, one] could not infer from [this alone] that Heli

Huatong Company had lowered the price and [offered] discounts on the basis of informing

ZHANG Li that the car had defects. [As for] the vehicle delivery checklist with ZHANG Li’s

signature submitted by Heli Huatong Company, because it was kept solely by Heli Huatong

Company and [because] the [pertinent] contents in the remarks column were written by different

personnel of the company and [that the pertinent contents] were not recognized by ZHANG Li,

the delivery checklist was not sufficient to prove that ZHANG Li was aware that the vehicle had

undergone repairs before. Thus, Heli Huatong Company’s defense, claiming that it had

performed its duty of informing ZHANG Li of the [car’s] defects, was not accepted. [It] should,

therefore, be determined that Heli Huatong Company concealed the preexisting defects of the

vehicle when it was sold [and that] there was a fraudulent act. [Thus,] the car and vehicle

purchase amount should be returned and compensation for ZHANG Li’s losses should be added

[to the amount to be paid by the seller].