Last December, Mr. Yang successfully bid for a painting by Zhang Daqian at an auction for 8.3 million yuan. When Mr. Yang took delivery, he found that the size of the paintings did not match the propaganda. After negotiation, he took back the price and did not take the paintings away. Later, auction companies appealed to the court to request Mr. Yang to continue to perform the contract and compensate for the economic losses. Recently, the Beijing Chaoyang Court opened a court hearing the case and made a first-instance judgment in court. It concluded that the auction company and Mr. Yang had cancelled the auction contract and the judgment rejected all the litigation requests of the auction company.
The size of the famous paintings is wrong. Buyers refuse to pay.
On December 16, 2017, an auction company in Beijing (hereinafter referred to as the auction company) held the Autumn Art Auction at Kunlun Hotel in Beijing. On the same day, Mr. Yang, from Wuxi, Jiangsu Province, signed the Bidding Agreement with the auction company, which stipulates that if the auction is completed, the bidder should pay all the purchase price including a 15% Commission on the mallet price at one time; the auction company does not bear the responsibility of guaranteeing the authenticity and falsity of the auction products; the auction catalogue and the status report shall guarantee the auction house. The introduction and evaluation are all reference opinions and do not constitute a guarantee. Bidders examine the original bidding products themselves and bear legal responsibility for the bidding behavior. At the Chinese Calligraphy and Painting (1) special event held on that day, Mr. Yang successfully bid for the auction Zhang Daqians worksThe Lotus Shadows are Colorfulfor 8.3 million yuan, and signed the transaction confirmation letter.
On February 5 this year, Mr. Yang paid the auction company a total of 9.6485 million yuan for Zhang Daqians painting and another one. But in the process of drawing, Mr. Yang found that the size description of Zhang Daqians Selected Works in the auction catalogue was not consistent with the actual size of the film, and questioned it. After telephone communication, the auction company returned the price of the above two pieces to Mr. Yang. After receiving the refund, Mr. Yang paid the price of another piece to the auction company for 1035,000 yuan, and took another piece away. The auction company still retained the production of Zhang Daqians workThe Lotus Shadows are Colorful.
The two sides have disputes over whether to cancel the contract.
According to the auction rules, Mr. Yang should be responsible for the bidding even if his description of the auction item is incorrect. Mr. Yangs signature of the transaction confirmation means that the auction contract is established and effective. Therefore, Mr. Yang should continue to perform the contract, pay the auction money and compensate for the losses. The auction company said that its refund was a temporary measure taken to further communicate the payment behavior, not to terminate the contract. To this end, the auction company asked Mr. Yang to pay 8.3 million yuan for the hammer drop and 124.5 million yuan for the lotus film, and to compensate for the insurance premium of 83,000 yuan, the lawyers fee of 400,000 yuan, as well as the overdue payment of interest and custody fee.
Mr. Yang argued that he had asked for a refund on the day of picking up the goods. After consulting with Ms. Gao, the general manager of the auction company, the auction company had returned the whole price of the auction products. Therefore, he believed that the auction contract had been cancelled after consultation between the two parties. The auction company had no right to ask it to pay the price of the auction products, nor to ask it to undertake all the items. Liability for breach of contract.
The court agreed that a refund or no delivery would be agreed.
In November 1st, Chaoyang Court heard the case.
During the trial, Ms. Gao, general manager of the auction company, Mr. Liu, manager of the painting and calligraphy department, and Mr. Kong, clerk, all testified as witnesses. Three people said that Mr. Yang did ask for a refund because of the size of the products when he picked up the goods. Ms. Gao, who was on a business trip at that time, made the decision to return the payment. However, Ms. Gao insists that her decision to refund is not a declaration of intention to terminate the contract, but a mitigation measure to safeguard the companys credibility and leave it to be checked and processed afterwards. Mr. Liu also said he had called Mr. Yang to pay the auctions later. Mr. Yang did not recognize this.
The court held that the focus of the dispute was the effectiveness of auction companiess refund behavior. Both sides hold different opinions on the details of the call, but they have not provided evidence, so it is impossible to ascertain the true content of the call at that time. However, from the telephone communication, the auction company refunds, Mr. Yang did not mention the film Lotus Shadows Colorful and only paid for another piece of production, which can be regarded as the two sides have reached consensus on the termination of the contract, and the legal consequences of the termination of the contract were dealt with, that is, the Lotus Shadows Colorful refund, no delivery.
Finally, the court decided at first instance that the auction companys refund of the auction money to Mr. Yang constituted the cancellation of the auction contract, and the judgment rejected all the litigation requests of the auction company. After the sentencing, auction companies and Mr. Yang did not explicitly indicate whether to appeal in court.
Source: Beiqing Net - Beijing Youth Daily editor in charge: Zhao Yaping _NN9005