There was a problem with the quality of the paint and the court awarded the seller money

China Paint Network
News: manufacturers due to the production of
paints
there are quality problems, the seller will sell the paint, resulting in a user contracted a construction project repair, the user will be the manufacturer, the seller to court, seeking damages, return of paint money. Recently, the Kaidong Court of Nantong City, Jiangsu Province, made a first-instance judgment in this case of product seller liability dispute, supporting the user's claim.
Plaintiff Qidong a steel structure company for contracting a Shanghai pharmaceutical company part of the steel structure project, to the seller Qidong a
painting company
to buy a total price of 179140 yuan to buy epoxy cloud iron rust-proof paint, perchlorinated polyethylene cloud iron intermediate paint and so on. After the construction of the project was completed, the builder found the pipe frame rusty and the paint fell off, and informed the plaintiff. The plaintiff then intervened with the seller and the manufacturer, but did not reach an agreement to deal with the matter. After the plaintiff asked the outsider to a single paint off, rust part of the repair, spent to repair the cost of 153,000 yuan.
hearing, the seller acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff had purchased paint from it and spent it on repairs, but argued that the paint was purchased from the manufacturer and that the seller was not liable for the quality of the product and that the plaintiff's losses should be compensated by the manufacturer. The manufacturer argued that the plaintiff's purchase of paint was the cost of the work it had undertaken and should not be compensated for the loss; The plaintiff did not prove that there was a quality problem with the paint and that there was a causal relationship between the rusting of the pipe frame, the peeling of the paint and the quality of the paint, and the manufacturer was not liable.
The court held that the evidence provided by the plaintiff initially indicated that there was a quality problem with the paint it had purchased, that the seller and the manufacturer had failed to provide evidence that the paint products involved in the case met national or industry quality standards, and that they had failed to provide a certificate of quality of the paint products, and that the seller and the manufacturer should therefore bear the adverse consequences of the evidence. The manufacturer shall be liable for the loss incurred by the plaintiff as a result of the repair. For the plaintiff to ask the manufacturer, the seller to return the paint money, because the paint involved in the case is the plaintiff to the seller to buy, the manufacturer did not directly have a contract relationship with the plaintiff to buy and sell, and the paint quality is not qualified, so the seller should return the price, the plaintiff asked the manufacturer to return the purchase price, there is no factual and legal basis. Accordingly, the court first instance ruled that the manufacturer compensated the plaintiff for the loss of 153,000 yuan, the seller returned the paint 179140 yuan.