In order to ascertain the facts, the court added a furniture company responsible for the production of furniture to participate in the lawsuit. The furniture company stated that although the furniture material agreed upon at the time was a solid wood frame of eucalyptus, when the drawings were later deepened, the engineer of the decoration company changed the furniture material, and the furniture company produced it according to the agreement.
During the trial of the court, the case involved the three parties to confirm the furniture material, confirming that 16 pieces of furniture agreed to use the beech wood frame, but the actual does not contain eucalyptus; another 8 pieces of furniture agreed to use eucalyptus wood frame, but the actual only part The location contains a small amount of eucalyptus.
The court held that the defendant's decoration company customized the furniture and purchase accessories on its own and earned a high price difference, which should bear the contractual responsibility of the seller. Among the furniture provided by the defendant decoration company, most of the furniture materials are inconsistent with the agreement between the two parties, which is a serious breach of contract. The plaintiff requested that the sale and purchase of all furniture should be allowed. For the carpet purchase problem, the material proof provided by the defendant is not sufficient to prove that the carpet material is imported, so the claim of the plaintiff requesting the cancellation of the carpet purchase and sale contract is also permitted. However, the decorative design part and the hard-fit part that have been completed by both parties should not be lifted.
《中华人民共和国消费者权益保护法》Provisions: If the operator provides fraudulent acts on goods or services, it shall increase the compensation for the losses suffered by the consumers according to the requirements of the consumers. The amount of compensation shall be three times the price of the goods purchased by the consumers or the fees for receiving the services. The court held that the defendant decoration company and the plaintiff agreed that the furniture material was a beech wood solid wood frame, but the furniture company changed the agreement to be free of eucalyptus or only a small amount of eucalyptus wood. The furniture delivered by the decoration company to the plaintiff did not meet the agreed materials of the two parties, apparently belonging to Fraud should increase the compensation for the plaintiff.
In the end, the court decided to lift the relevant contract between the two parties,
The decoration company returned the purchase price of more than 670,000 yuan,xx