Brief description of the case:

In January 2019, the plaintiff, Mr. Li, purchased an off-road vehicle from the defendant, a vehicle sales service company, and paid more than 800000 yuan for the purchase. In July 2019, the plaintiff, Li Mou, filed a lawsuit against the defendant, a vehicle sales service limited company, claiming that during the use of the vehicle, he found that the paint thickness of the vehicle was inconsistent. He believed that the defendant, a vehicle sales service limited company, intentionally concealed this situation during the sale of the vehicle, and was fraudulent in intent. He requested the defendant, a vehicle sales service limited company, to refund the purchase price and compensate for losses based on three times the purchase price, The total expenses are over 3.6 million yuan.

Court hearing:

After hearing, the court held that, in accordance with Article 68 of the "Mintong Opinion", if one party intentionally informs the other party of a false situation, or intentionally conceals the true situation, inducing the other party to make a false declaration of intent, it can be considered as a fraudulent act. From this, it can be seen that the elements constituting fraud include: 1. One party needs to have the intention of fraud. 2. The fraudster has committed fraudulent acts, generally including deliberately informing false information and deliberately concealing the truth. 3. The deceived party is caught in a false judgment due to fraud. 4. The fraudster expressed his intention based on erroneous judgment. Fraud can only be constituted if all four of the above constitutive requirements are met.

Specifically, in this case, the vehicle manufacturer has issued a certificate for the vehicle, certifying that the paint problem described by the plaintiff, Mr. Li, is a routine operation conducted by the manufacturer for quality control purposes during the production process. The court believes that the situation is significantly minor, and the operator is easily unable to identify it with the naked eye, even if the vehicle has paint problems, It is also impossible to prove that the problem occurred during the sales process and that the defendant, a vehicle sales service limited company, should have been aware of the situation. Therefore, based on the above facts, the fraud claimed by the plaintiff, Li, is not well founded, and the court does not support his claim for triple compensation.

(This article is translated by software translator for reference only.)