Recently, the verdict of a product liability dispute case represented by Lawyer Qu Shuai, a partner of Gaopeng Law Firm, was announced. In this case, the opposing party submitted a field appraisal opinion to the court, which stated in the appraisal conclusion that the purity index of the soybean seeds involved in the case was not qualified. In this case, both the first and second instance courts adopted the opinions of the defendant's representative, Lawyer Qu Shuai, and rejected all of the plaintiff's claims.

Overview of the case situation

On July 7, 2023, a trading company in Baishan City (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) purchased Qianchuanzi large oil bean seeds produced by a certain seed group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the principal) at a certain agricultural supply store. The plaintiff claimed that there were large areas of miscellaneous plants (i.e. not money skewers or big oil beans) after planting the seeds involved in the case, and therefore applied for on-site field identification to the Agriculture and Rural Bureau of Baishan City on August 25, 2023. On September 2, 2023, the Agriculture and Rural Bureau of Baishan City organized relevant technical experts from Jilin Provincial Seed Management Station, Jilin Provincial Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Jilin Provincial Vegetable and Flower Science Research Institute, etc. to conduct on-site identification, and issued the "Field Identification Opinion on the Purity of Qianchuanzi Big Oil Bean Varieties" (hereinafter referred to as the identification opinion). The identification conclusion stated that the Qianchuanzi Big Oil Bean involved in the case did not meet the purity index value indicated on the label. The plaintiff used this as core evidence to file a lawsuit with the Hunjiang District People's Court in Baishan City.

Lawyer Qu Shuai, as the representative of the defendant, emphasized in his defense to the court that according to Article 2 of the "On site Appraisal Method for Crop Seed Quality Disputes", the appraisal opinion should not be used as a basis for determining that the purity of the seeds produced by the client is unqualified, and explained the relevant reasons. At the same time, Lawyer Qu Shuai submitted to the court testimonies from other farmers who planted the soybean seeds without any abnormal purity, as well as relevant evidence such as the quality inspection results of the batch of seeds, proving that the purity of the seeds produced by the client is qualified. On this basis, Lawyer Qu Shuai approached from another perspective and calculated that the planting area based on the number of seeds purchased by the plaintiff was much lower than the plaintiff's claimed loss area. This further proved that if the plaintiff's claimed miscellaneous plants did appear in the field, it was caused by the plaintiff mixing the seeds of Qianchuanzi big oil beans with other seeds for sowing, rather than the client producing beans with substandard purity.

The court ultimately adopted the opinion of Lawyer Qu Shuai and determined that the appraisal opinion submitted by the plaintiff could not prove that the purity of the seeds produced by the client was unqualified. The first instance court ruled to reject all of the plaintiff's claims, and the plaintiff appealed against the first instance judgment. The second instance court rejected the appeal and upheld the original verdict.

The core dispute of this case

The core dispute in this case lies in whether the appraisal opinion submitted by the plaintiff, although stating in the appraisal conclusion that the bean seeds involved in the case "did not meet the purity index indicated on the label", can be used as a basis for determining whether the purity of the bean seeds involved in the case is unqualified?

Lawyer Qu Shuai believes that according to Article 2 of the "Measures for Field Site Appraisal of Crop Seed Quality Disputes", field site appraisal is a "field site technical appraisal activity conducted to determine the cause of the accident or (and) the degree of loss". Field site appraisal can only analyze and determine the preliminary causes of accidents in field planting, such as accidents caused by cultivation techniques, climate, soil, seed quality, and other factors. Only when the identification conclusion determines that the accident was caused by seed quality, will the identification of the four indicators of seed quality, namely purity, purity, germination rate, and moisture, be initiated. Field identification cannot directly determine the quality of seeds. The appraisal conclusion of this case directly determines that the purity is unqualified, which violates the provisions of the "On site Appraisal Method for Quality Disputes of Crop Seeds". In addition, the identification of seed quality cannot be completed through visual observation in the field. It should be carried out by legally established and qualified identification institutions by extracting seed samples and identifying them according to relevant identification regulations. The objective conclusion drawn from this can be used as the basis for determining whether the planting purity is qualified. Therefore, the court adopted the opinion of Lawyer Qu Shuai and rejected the matters proven by the appraisal opinion submitted by the plaintiff.

Reminder for growers and seed production and operation enterprises

(1) It is not advisable for farmers to seek truth from facts and attempt to obtain compensation by fabricating or confusing facts, as they will ultimately suffer losses.

(2) When purchasing seeds, growers are required to seal and properly store the samples for testing in case of any quality issues.

(3) If an accident does occur in the planted field, a field appraisal should be applied for in a timely manner. If the field appraisal determines that the accident is caused by seed quality, the seed quality appraisal should be initiated as soon as possible as evidence for reporting to agricultural law enforcement departments or civil rights protection.

(4) For seed production and sales, it should be noted that on-site identification opinions cannot be directly used as a basis for determining the quality of seeds as unqualified. When facing administrative investigations or civil compensation claims for this, effective defenses should be provided.