Recently, the Binyang County People's Court heard a dispute over an information network sales contract, and the plaintiff claimed compensation from the seller on the grounds that the quality of the high-ice jadeite rough he purchased did not meet the agreement. After the trial, the court held that the seller was not responsible for the quality of the jadeite rough and rejected the plaintiff's claim in accordance with the law.
Basic facts of the case
The plaintiff, Wei Moumou, had previously purchased jadeite rough stones through an online shopping platform on several occasions in a live broadcast room store operated by the defendant Bao, and had also entrusted two of the rough stones to be processed into finished products by the store. On November 27, 2021, the plaintiff Wei Moumou once again purchased a piece of jadeite rough named "Natural Jade Myanmar Rough Stone Live Room Gao Bing Species Floating Flower Yang Green Bracelet Laokeng Semi-Ming Material Jade" in the live broadcast room operated by the defendant Bao, ** for 30,000 yuan. After the plaintiff placed an order and made payment, the defendant entrusted the defendant to process the jadeite rough he purchased into bracelet jewelry, and the customer service in the live broadcast room asked the plaintiff "whether it is necessary to 'peel, open the window, break the window, and cut' the rough stone, and the store will not support the return or exchange due to the impact on the secondary sales of the goods", and the plaintiff replied that "confirm the peeling", the defendant processed the jadeite rough into bracelet jewelry according to the plaintiff's entrustment, and mailed the bracelet and the remaining materials to the plaintiff. After receiving the bracelet and the remaining materials, the plaintiff believed that it was not processed from the high-ice jadeite rough materials he purchased, and after applying for a return and refund unsuccessfully, he sued the defendant for compensation of 140,000 yuan for economic losses, 30,000 yuan for mental damages, and 18,000 yuan for lost work. Regarding the material and quality of the original stone, the plaintiff said that "in the live broadcast room, it was promised that it was a high-ice jadeite, and there was no evidence to prove it, and there was no screen recording during the live broadcast", "according to what the anchor in the live broadcast room said, the bracelet made of this piece of rough stone is worth more than 300,000 yuan, but after receiving the bracelet, it was found that the quality was completely different from what the anchor said." The defendant did not appear in court and did not make a plea.
Basic facts of the case
The plaintiff claimed that the jadeite rough it purchased "did not match the description of the product", but did not provide evidence to prove that the defendant made a commitment to the material and quality of the rough stone. According to the rule of burden of proof, the parties shall provide evidence to prove the facts on which their claims are based. The plaintiff only stated that "in the live broadcast room, it was promised that it was a high-ice jadeite, and there was no evidence to prove it, and there was no screen recording during the live broadcast", but in the case that the defendant did not reply and recognize, the plaintiff should still provide further evidence, and its failure to provide evidence should bear the adverse consequences of failing to provide evidence, so its claim should not be recognized. The transaction mode in this case is actually a common transaction method in the jadeite industry - gambling on stones or jade.
According to the data, gambling stone or gambling jade refers to the process of jade trading, because the surface of the gravel has a layer of weathered shell covering, can not see the internal situation, people only according to the characteristics of the shell and the local "door", with their own experience to infer the advantages and disadvantages of the jade inside the gambling stone. This makes it quite difficult to identify the quality of jadeite raw materials in the trading of jadeite raw materials. This kind of transaction is quite like gambling, no one has the certainty of winning, that is, experienced experts, it is inevitable to have a time to look away, quite risky, there is a saying in the industry that "the gods are difficult to break the jade", so people call this kind of business behavior gambling stone. The plaintiff had purchased rough stones from the defendant's shop several times, and was obviously aware of this trading pattern in the jadeite industry, and the jadeite rough involved in the case was processed only after the plaintiff had "confirmed the peeling", and the plaintiff had also recognized the trading model. According to the above-mentioned legal provisions on the quality of the subject matter without agreement or unclear treatment rules, the defendant did not give a commitment to the quality of the rough, that is, the two parties did not reach an agreement on the quality of the jadeite rough, according to the trading Xi of the jadeite rough industry, the quality of the jadeite issued by the rough has nothing to do with the seller, and the defendant is not responsible for the quality of the jadeite rough. In summary, the Binyang County Court rejected the plaintiff's claim in accordance with the law.
What the judge said
Buying and selling jadeite rough is different from buying and selling other common subject matter. The jadeite rough is often not its true value, and its true value needs to be determined by opening the rough to confirm the quality of the jadeite. Therefore, the purchase of jadeite rough is not the ultimate goal of the buyer, its real purpose is essentially to hope that the purchased rough can produce high-quality jadeite, and thus make a high profit.
The parties buy and sell jadeite rough through the online platform, but before the transaction, neither the buyer nor the seller knows the quality of the jadeite rough, otherwise the seller will not sell the rough at a lower price. The buyer can only infer the advantages and disadvantages of the jadeite inside the rough based on his own experience based on the characteristics of the rough shell and the seller's partial "door". This is the case in this case when some purchasers sued the seller for compensation because the quality of the rough was not up to expectations. Although the jadeite rough transaction is different from other common subject matter transactions, it also has the essential characteristics of the sales contract that "the seller transfers the ownership of the subject matter to the buyer and the buyer pays the price", and it is still subject to the provisions of the Civil Code on the sales contract.
The judge reminded that the law does not prohibit gambling stone trading, but according to the principle of self-willingness, if a party voluntarily gambles on profits at risk, it should bear it when the risk arises.
*: Nanning Intermediate Court.