Your current location >> Cases
Puppy Diagnosed with Severe Infectious Disease 4 Days After Sold
[2019-05-06]

[Case Review]

In June 2017, Mr. Lu purchased a Labrador puppy from the Meng Chong Company at the cost of RMB 1,300, together with a dog cage and some other pet supplies (RMB 700). He also paid for an on-site detection test of canine parvovirus and distemper (RMB 100) on the same day. Four days later, Mr. Lu found the puppy sick and took it to a pet hospital for treatment. Then the puppy was diagnosed with a severe infectious disease. Two weeks later, the dog died after the medical treatment failed.

In October 2017, Mr. Lu filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance which ruled that the Meng Chong Company should return to Mr. Lu the payment for the purchase of the puppy, the dog food and the dog cage totaling RMB 2,000, and should compensate Mr. Lu RMB more than RMB 9,000 for the cost of the puppy (tripled) and the medical expenses for the puppy, and that Mr. Lu should return the dog food and the dog cage to the Meng Chong Company. The Meng Chong Company refused to accept the judgment and filed an appeal with Shanghai No.1 Intermediate People¡¯s Court (hereinafter referred to as the ¡°Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate Court¡±).

[Case Study]

In August 2018, Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate Court heard the case. Both the Meng Chong Company and Mr. Lu appeared before the court for trial. The Meng Chong Company claimed that the puppy got sick because it had been raised in an improper way, thus requesting the court to reverse the original judgment and reject Mr. Lu¡¯s claims in the trial of first instance. But Mr. Lu claimed that the Meng Chong Company had violated the principle of good faith by selling a sick puppy, thus requesting the court to reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

The focus of dispute in this case was whether the Meng Chong Company had conducted a fraudulent act.

The Meng Chong Company argued that, Mr. Lu selected the puppy himself instead of being forced to buy it; the Meng Chong Company had provided the inspection and quarantine certificates of the puppy and agreed that Mr. Lu could return the puppy within 24 hours of the purchase, and thus the company had conducted no fraudulent act; the puppy died because it had been raised in an improper way, and the Meng Chong Company agreed to return only the payment for the purchase of the puppy. Mr. Lu argued that he had found the puppy with a running nose the very day he purchased it from the Meng Chong Company and brought it home, and immediately contacted a clerk of the company who said that the puppy had just caught a cold and told him to buy medicine for it, but when Mr. Lu took the puppy to a pet hospital for a test four days later, the test result showed that the puppy suffered a highly infectious disease; the Meng Chong Company claimed to have the certificate of inspection, but the certificate couldn¡¯t prove the good health of the puppy sold to Mr. Lu as the company didn¡¯t provide the quarantine certificate of the puppy; the Meng Chong Company¡¯s claim that the virus was caused by improper raising was a distortion of the facts.

After hearing the case, Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate Court held that, the fact that the puppy sold by the Meng Chong Company was diagnosed with a severe infectious disease within only four days after the sale and the incubation period of the disease were able to prove that the puppy sold by the Meng Chong Company was sick when the purchase occurred and thus the company had obviously violated the principle of good faith; Mr. Lu¡¯s claims made in the court of first instance that the Meng Chong Company should return the payment for the purchase of the puppy, pay tripled compensation, take back the dog cage and the dog food, and repay the medical expenses for the puppy were lawful and justified, and thus should be supported; the Meng Chong Company insisted that it was wrong for the first-instance court to determine that the company had conducted a fraudulent act, and claimed that the death of the puppy was caused by the client¡¯s improper raising, but it failed to provide sufficient valid evidence in support of its propositions.

Therefore, Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate Court ordered to reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

[Relevant Laws]

I. Law of the PRC on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of Consumers

Article 11 A consumer shall have the right to obtain compensation in accordance with the law where harm is inflicted upon their person or property as a result of the purchase or use of a commodity or the receipt of a service.

Article 55 Unless otherwise prescribed by law, business operators that practice fraud in providing goods or services shall, on the demands of consumers, increase the compensation for their losses by an amount that is three times the payment made by the consumers for the goods purchased or services received, or in the amount of RMB 500 if the increased compensation is less than RMB 500 except as otherwise stipulated by law.

II. Contract Law of the People¡¯s Republic of China

Article 60 The parties shall perform their respective obligations in their entirety in accordance with the terms of their agreement.

The parties shall observe the principles of honesty and trustworthiness, and shall perform all notification, assistance and confidentiality obligations, etc., in accordance with the nature and purpose of the contract and with business practices.

III. Civil Procedure Law of the People¡¯s Republic of China

Article 64 A party shall have the responsibility to provide evidence in support of its own propositions.

For the evidence that cannot be obtained by any parties or their litigation representatives due to realistic reasons or for the evidence that the people¡¯s court considers necessary for adjudicating the case, the people¡¯s court shall investigate and collect such evidence.

The people¡¯s court shall, according to the procedure prescribed by law, collect and examine evidence comprehensively and objectively.

Article 253 If the person subjected to execution fails to fulfil his obligations with respect to pecuniary payment within the period specified by a judgment or written order or any other legal document, he shall pay double interest on the debt for the belated payment. If the person subjected to execution fails to fulfil his other obligations within the period specified in the judgment or written order or any other legal document, he shall pay a charge for the dilatory fulfilment.

 

(Writer: Zhang Bingfen of Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate Court)


 

>> Chinese Version
The English version of this article, which is translated from the Chinese version by CTPC, is for reference only and shall be subject to the corresponding contents on the Chinese webpage.
Copyright @2014 Shanghai High People's Court, All Rights Reserved.