Changzhou Intermediate People's Court recently released the Top 10 Typical Cases of Changzhou Court 2024. These cases are carefully selected from the 132,000 cases concluded by the city's courts, and have strong demonstrative, representative and influential features, covering a wide range of fields such as criminal, civil, commercial and enforcement. These typical cases either involve the protection of people's livelihood, or focus on economic development, or reflect new problems in the application of law, which is a vivid practice of Changzhou courts to serve the local economic and social development, and to maintain social fairness and justice. In this paper, we will analyze these ten cases one by one, refine the basic facts of each case, the applicable law, the basis of the decision and the legal significance, and explore the reference value for similar cases in the future.
Case Study
Case 1: Shi Mou v. A Construction Company and others, a case of execution objection
Case Brief:
In this case, the applicant, a construction company, claimed enforcement of a property in the enforcement proceedings, and the outsider, Shi Mou, objected, claiming that he had a legal right to the property and filed a lawful objection to the enforcement, requesting to be excluded from the enforcement of the property. Shi claimed that he had acquired an interest in the property in question on the basis of a lawful transaction, but that the property had been seized during the execution of the debt of the construction company as the executor, thus affecting his rights and interests.
Applicable Law and Basis of Decision:
The court focused on examining whether Shi had substantive rights over the property in question that were sufficient to preclude enforcement. According to the Civil Procedure Law and relevant judicial interpretations, if the outsider claims that the subject matter of the enforcement should not be enforced, he needs to prove that he enjoys a legal right of property or other civil rights and interests in the subject matter. In this case, the court combined with real estate registration, transaction contract and other evidence to determine the authenticity and priority of Shi's right to the property. If the evidence showed that Shi had legally acquired the right to property and the right should be protected by law, the court should decide to stop the execution of the property; otherwise, if Shi's right was not based on sufficient grounds, his request would be rejected. The court ultimately made a decision based on the ownership situation identified, confirming Shi's legal right to the property in question and ruling that the property should not be executed (or its claim dismissed, depending on the evidence).
Legal Significance:
This case clarifies the standard of reviewing the rights in the lawsuit of execution objection, emphasizing that the outsider needs to have real and legal substantive rights in order to block the court's execution. This decision protects the legal rights and interests of outsiders, prevents the property of unrelated third parties from being wrongly enforced, and balances the efficiency of enforcement with the protection of legal rights and interests. With this precedent, in the future in similar disputes over implementation objections, the right to submit the title certificate, contract documents, etc. will become a key basis for the court to determine the court will also be strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law to review ownership, so as to ensure that the implementation of the program is legal and fair. The case has an important reference value in judicial practice to regulate the implementation behavior and protect the rights and interests of stakeholders.
Case 2: Infringement of the trademark "Shang Shang Cable"
Case Brief:
This case involves trademark infringement of the well-known cable brand "Shang Shang Cable". In order to make profits, the unscrupulous merchants sprayed and printed the words "Jiangsu Shangshang Cable Group Co., Ltd." without authorization on the low-quality cables without brand mark, and forged the certificates of conformity and inspection reports of the products with registered trademarks, and then sold the cable products counterfeited to the public as the brand. This behavior led to a large number of counterfeit "Shangshang Cable" products flowing into the market, which not only damaged the goodwill and economic interests of the right holder enterprises, but also potentially jeopardized the safety of consumers' electricity consumption.
Applicable Law and Basis of Decision:
In response to the above infringement, the court, based on the provisions of the Trademark Law prohibiting the unauthorized use of other people's registered trademarks, found that the defendant's conduct constituted an infringement of the exclusive right to use registered trademarks. Due to the seriousness of the infringement, the amount of money, has violated the criminal law in the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks of the constituent elements, the procuratorial organs of the people involved in the case was prosecuted. After trial, the court ruled in the first instance that the defendant Zhou was guilty of the crime of counterfeiting a registered trademark, and sentenced him to one year and six months of fixed-term imprisonment, two years of probation, and a fine of RMB 85,000 yuan. The court ruled that the defendant used the well-known trademark without permission, and his behavior had seriously infringed the legitimate rights and interests of the trademark owner and the market order, and he should bear civil and criminal liabilities according to the law.
Legal Significance:
This case highlights the strength of the court's protection of intellectual property rights. By combining criminal crackdown with civil remedies, it timely stopped the trademark counterfeiting behavior and safeguarded the goodwill of the brand enterprise and the rights and interests of consumers. The case clarifies the legal consequences of counterfeiting a well-known trademark: not only do you have to bear the liability for civil infringement compensation, but you will also be held criminally liable if the circumstances are serious. The case serves as a warning for similar trademark infringement in the future: enterprises should strengthen their awareness of trademark protection, and market operators should not take the fluke of counterfeiting well-known brands, or they will face severe legal sanctions. This case has a demonstration effect in the Changzhou area and even nationwide to protect local famous brands and create a business environment of integrity.
Case 3: The case of 980,000 "old people's mobile phones" subjected to surreptitious chargebacks
Case Brief:
This is a new type of telecommunication network crime case. The defendant, Ouyang Mou and others, implanted codes containing malicious deduction instructions into the chips of feature phones (commonly known as "old people's phones") and sold these phones to the public in large quantities, totaling about 980,000 units. Purchase of cell phone users in the case of unknowingly, their cell phone bill was secretly deducted, each phone each time the amount of deduction is small, but because of the user involved in an extremely wide range of cumulative total amount of stolen deductions up to millions of dollars. Ouyang Mou and other people to cover up the crime, through the third-party value-added services channel to send instructions to implement the deduction, and intercept the deduction information, and afterwards, according to the agreed ratio of the illegal proceeds of the spoils.
Applicable Law and Basis of Decision:
The court held that Ouyang Mou and others, in order to illegally take possession of the cell phone users' phone bills, secretly stole the users' phone bills by illegally intruding into and controlling the cell phone information system in the form of ostensibly legal value-added services, and their behavior violated both the crime of theft and the crime of illegally controlling the computer information system, and they should be punished according to the provisions of the criminal law by "choosing a felony", i.e., by committing the crime of theft and by being convicted. Convicted and punished according to the criminal law. The court according to the defendant's criminal facts, circumstances and guilty attitude, according to the law to the theft of four defendants were sentenced to twelve years to five years and eight months of imprisonment, and the corresponding fine. At the same time, ordered to refund the illegal income, the recovered stolen money back to the victimized users. The Intermediate Court of Second Instance reviewed and held that the conviction and sentence in the first instance was correct, dismissed the appeal and upheld the original sentence.
Legal Significance:
This case is a new type of case that intertwines information technology and traditional property crimes, and clarifies the legal characterization of the use of software to deduct fees maliciously - essentially an act of theft. Through this case, the court showed that even if the amount of money stolen from a single user is not large, the large-scale, multi-frequency bulk deduction also constitutes the "aggravating circumstances" of the crime of theft, and will be severely punished by the judicial authorities. The decision in this case unified the legal application standards for similar technical deduction behavior, avoiding criminals to use legal gaps to avoid sanctions. At the same time, the case highlights the attitude of the judiciary to actively adapt to the development of science and technology and protect the property rights and interests of consumers, which is an important reference value for handling similar telecommunication network crime cases in the future.
Case 4: Xu Mou, Cai Mou and 28 others v. Chu Mou Service Contract Dispute
Case Brief:
This case is a contractual dispute involving a large number of people. Plaintiffs Xu, Cai and other 28 people signed a service contract (such as education and training, travel subscription or other services) with Defendant Cumou, and paid the service fees according to the agreement. However, the contract fulfillment process, the defendant storage failed to provide the corresponding services as agreed, and even appeared business closure or broken capital chain, resulting in 28 plaintiffs contractual rights and interests are damaged. A number of parties then jointly sued for the termination of the contract, and demanded the defendant to return the paid fees and compensation for damages. Due to the large number of people involved and similar claims, the court consolidated the cases according to law.
Applicable Law and Basis of Decision:
The court held that the contract at issue in the case was a service contract, which was subject to the general principles of the Contract Part of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China. According to the provisions of the Civil Code on remedies for breach of contract, when a party to a contract fails to provide services as agreed, this constitutes a breach of contract, and the defending party has the right to request the termination of the contract and demand that the breaching party bear the responsibility of returning the costs and compensating for the losses. The court found that 28 plaintiffs have fulfilled the payment obligations, while the defendant Chu did not actually perform and no legal defense, has constituted a fundamental breach of contract. The court accordingly in accordance with the relevant provisions of the civil code: order the termination of the service contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant, the defendant to return the fees charged and compensation for interest or loss. In view of the fact that the case was a unified breach of contract by the same defendant against a number of parties, the Court resolved the claims of all 28 plaintiffs together in its judgment, thus avoiding duplication of litigation.
Legal Significance:
The case fully reflects the protection of the rights and interests of consumer groups and the enhancement of judicial efficiency. On the one hand, the court supported the legitimate claims of all victimized contractual counterparts, and pursued the liability of the breaching party in accordance with the law, which demonstrated the principle that breach of contract must be investigated; on the other hand, through the consolidation of hearings, judicial resources were saved to ensure that "the same case is adjudicated in the same way" under similar circumstances, and to avoid the inconsistent results that may be produced by the individual litigations of the parties. This case has a guiding value for future contractual disputes involving many consumers: when multiple victims have the same claim and the same factual and legal issues, joint litigation can be taken according to the law and centralized trial, which not only safeguards the rights and interests of the parties, but also improves the credibility of the judiciary. At the same time, it also warns the service provider should abide by the contract integrity, do not because of a person's breach of trust and trigger group legal consequences.
Case 5: Chen Moumou's crime of endangering plants under national key protection
Case Brief:
This case is a criminal case of destroying wild plant resources. The defendant, Chen Moumou, illegally extracted and transported without authorization rare plants under the State's key protection (e.g., precious trees or endangered wild herbs, etc.), in large quantities and under serious circumstances. Specifically, Chen knew that a plant was protected by law but still went on a rampage to harvest it and tried to sell it for profit, causing serious damage to the local ecological environment and species resources. After the case, the administrative authorities referred the leads to the judicial authorities.
Applicable Law and Basis of Decision:
In response to the defendant Chen Moumou's actions, the court convicted and sentenced him in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China on crimes of destroying wildlife resources. The criminal law stipulates that illegally harvesting or destroying plants under state protection or illegally acquiring or transporting plants under state protection and their products under serious circumstances constitutes a criminal offense. After verification, Chen Moumou digging plant belongs to the national level protection plant, his behavior has seriously endangered the national key protection plant, violation of the relevant provisions of the criminal law. Accordingly, the court found that Chen Moumou constituted a crime, considering the consequences of his behavior and subjective malice, and sentenced him to a corresponding term of imprisonment and a fine, and confiscated the illegal proceeds and tools of the crime. The court emphasized that the state has implemented a strict protection system for rare and endangered plant resources, and that no one may harvest or trade without authorization, or they will be held criminally liable.
Legal Significance:
This case highlights the firm attitude of the judiciary towards the protection of the ecological environment and rare species. By imposing criminal penalties for the destruction of plants under key protection, the court has played a deterrent and educational role, demonstrating that the destruction of the ecological environment will be severely punished by law. This case also embodies the implementation of the concept of "green mountains are golden mountains" in the judicial field of the concrete practice: that is, in the conflict between economic interests and environmental protection, the law firmly on the side of ecological protection. For similar environmental resource crime cases in the future, this case provides a basis for trial and a reference for sentencing, helps to unify judicial standards, and further promotes public awareness of the rule of law and conscientious protection of natural ecology and rare resources.
Case 6: Changzhou Zhongsheng Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. bankruptcy reorganization to liquidation case
Case Brief:
Changzhou Zhongsheng Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. was filed for bankruptcy by creditors due to insolvency. After accepting the application, the court first initiated bankruptcy reorganization proceedings in an attempt to save the enterprise through the introduction of investment, debt restructuring and other means. However, during the reorganization period, due to various reasons (e.g. failure to submit the draft reorganization plan within the statutory period, the draft reorganization plan was not passed by the creditors' meeting, or the debtor did not cooperate with the reorganization, etc.), the reorganization plan could not be successfully promoted. Faced with the failure of reorganization, the administrator or relevant parties applied for transferring the procedure from reorganization to bankruptcy liquidation in accordance with the law. After reviewing the current situation of the enterprise and the possibility of reorganization, the court decided to terminate the reorganization proceedings and declare the enterprise bankrupt, and to transfer to liquidation proceedings to dispose of and realize the remaining property.
Applicable Law and Basis of Decision:
According to the provisions of the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law of the People's Republic of China, in the process of bankruptcy and reorganization, if the debtor fails to put forward a feasible draft reorganization plan by the deadline, or if the reorganization plan is not adopted without extension, the court shall adjudicate to terminate the reorganization procedure and declare the debtor bankrupt and liquidated. In this case, the court found that the failure of Zhongsheng Real Estate Company's reorganization was a foregone conclusion, and that continuing the reorganization would harm the interests of creditors and the efficiency of the process, so it ruled that the reorganization should be suspended and transferred to liquidation proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Bankruptcy Law. The decision emphasized the principle of protecting the fair compensation of creditors: after entering the liquidation procedure, the administrator would dispose of the company's assets at their value in accordance with the law, and distribute them to the creditors in accordance with the order of liquidation stipulated by the law, so as to ensure that the lawful claims of the creditors would be realized fairly to the greatest extent possible.
Legal Significance:
This case reflects the balanced application of the bankruptcy law between saving enterprises and protecting claims. On the one hand, the court gave the distressed enterprise a chance to reorganize in the early stage, reflecting the intention to save the enterprise with regeneration value; on the other hand, when reorganization was hopeless, it transferred to liquidation in a timely and decisive manner, preventing the procedure from dragging on for a long period of time and safeguarding the rights and interests of creditors in a practical manner. Through this case, the court clarified the legal standards and procedures for the termination of bankruptcy reorganization, which will help the judge judge when to terminate reorganization and start liquidation in similar cases in the future, and provide guidelines for judicial practice. The case also reminds enterprises that during the reorganization period, they should actively fulfill their obligations in good faith and negotiate with creditors to reach a feasible plan, otherwise they will face the legal consequences of bankruptcy and liquidation. The case is of positive significance for optimizing the business environment under the rule of law and enhancing the quality of bankruptcy trials.
Case 7: Zhang's refusal to execute a judgment or ruling
Case Brief:
This case is a criminal offense that occurred during the civil enforcement phase. The executed person Zhang mou in a civil case effective judgment to determine its obligation to pay (such as repayment of debts or move out of the house), have the ability to fulfill but intentionally avoid, resist the implementation. Zhang not only ignored the court's notice of active fulfillment, but also evaded execution by hiding property and transferring assets, resulting in a long period of time in which the effective judgment could not be honored, seriously damaging the legitimate rights and interests of the successful party and judicial authority. The implementation of the court in the exhaustive property investigation and coercive measures to no avail, will be suspected of committing a crime Zhang clues transferred to the public security organs for investigation.
Applicable Law and Basis of Decision:
According to article 313 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, if a person who is obliged to carry out an enforcement obligation has the ability to do so but refuses to carry out the people's court's judgment or ruling, and the circumstances are serious, this constitutes a crime. In this case, the evidence shows that Zhang has the ability to fulfill (e.g., property in his name, income) but resisted the execution for a long time, and adopted malicious means such as camouflaging property, the circumstances are in the range of seriousness, in line with the statutory elements of the crime. The court accordingly held him criminally liable for the crime of refusing to execute a judgment or ruling. After the trial, the court found that Zhang's behavior was malicious and of serious consequences, and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment (which can usually be less than three years, with a solid sentence or probation depending on the circumstances) as well as a fine in accordance with the law. The referee made it clear that the executor's behavior of defying judicial authority and resisting enforcement violated the criminal law and must be punished by criminal penalties.
Legal Significance:
This case sends an important signal of the "rigidity of judicial decisions", i.e., the effective decisions of the people's courts must be strictly enforced, and any attempt to challenge judicial authority and evade legal obligations will be sanctioned. Through criminal penalties, the court effectively deterred the group of executors who refused to fulfill their obligations, and maintained the seriousness and credibility of judicial decisions. This case provides a useful model for the national courts to solve the problem of difficult to implement: in civil compulsory measures can not work, resolute use of criminal means to punish refusal to implement behavior, the formation of the "old" legal deterrent. It reminds the debtor to abide by the good faith, or will probably face prison. Similar cases in the future, the judicial organs can refer to this case standard screening "the ability to perform and refused to perform" situation, according to the law and timely intervention in the criminal process, so as to ensure that the legitimate rights and interests of the parties to the lawsuit is really put into practice.
Case 8: Jin Mou v. A Technology Company Labor Contract Disputes
Case Brief:
Plaintiff Jinmou in May 2022 joined the defendant a technology company, engaged in software development work, the two sides signed a three-year labor contract. Two months after joining Jinmou pregnant, since then due to the reaction of pregnancy repeatedly sick leave and submit hospital diagnostic certificate, the company were approved. However, on January 6, 2023, the company unilaterally terminated the employment contract on the grounds that Jin was unable to perform her original job due to long-term sick leave, and paid her economic compensation. In February 2023, Jin successfully gave birth to a child. Thereafter, Jin was not satisfied with the termination decision, and first applied for labor arbitration to request the restoration of the labor relationship but was not supported, so she filed a lawsuit to the court, requesting a judgment to revoke the company's notice of termination, and to restore the relationship between her and the company's labor contract.
Applicable Law and Basis of Decision:
The court held that the termination of the employment contract by the defendant, a technology company, on the grounds that Jin's sick leave affected her work lacked a legal basis. According to article 42 of the labor contract law of the People's Republic of China, during a female worker's pregnancy, maternity, or breastfeeding period (i.e., the "three periods"), the employer may not terminate the employment contract with her in accordance with articles 40 and 41 of the law. In this case, Jin was pregnant at the time of termination, and the objective circumstances cited by the company did not meet the circumstances permitted by law to terminate the labor contract, which was unlawful. According to Article 48 of the Labor Contract Law, the worker can demand the continuation of the contract (reinstatement of the labor relationship) or compensation. Given that the employer failed to prove that the labor contract could not be fulfilled, and that the notice of termination did not contain any reasons why it could not be fulfilled, the court supported Jin's claim for restoration of the labor relationship. The first instance judgment revoked the company's notice of termination and reinstated the labor contract relationship between the two parties, which was upheld in the second instance after the company appealed against the decision.
Legal Significance:
This case provides a clear judicial example of the legal provisions for the special protection of female workers. The Third Plenary Session of the Twentieth Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) put forward the idea of "perfecting the policy of supporting childbirth and building a birth-friendly society", and the corresponding laws provide special protection for female workers during pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding. However, in practice, some employers still dismiss female workers during pregnancy at will and use economic compensation as a substitute for continuing to fulfill the contract. This case clearly declares through the decision: the employer shall not unilaterally terminate the contract on the grounds of pregnancy or maternity leave, even if it is illegal to pay compensation; for such illegal termination, the court can order the restoration of the labor relationship, in order to effectively safeguard the basic labor rights of the female workers during the three periods of the right to work and the right to life. While safeguarding the rights and interests of vulnerable groups in accordance with the law, this case also balanced the reasonable boundaries of the enterprise's autonomy in employment, and prevented the enterprise from paying compensation in lieu of its legal obligations. The outcome of the case has a guiding value for the handling of similar labor disputes in the future, and promotes employers' compliance with the law and the creation of a fairer and friendlier employment environment.
Case 9: Dispute over obstruction between Ye and other plaintiffs and Lv and other defendants
Case Brief:
This case is a neighboring rights dispute. Plaintiff Ye and others and Defendant Lv and others are the right holders of adjacent properties. One of the Defendants, without the Plaintiff's consent, erected buildings/structures or piled up obstacles in the adjoining area, which impeded the Plaintiff's normal use of its own real estate. For example, Lv Mou and other people in their own courtyard to build illegal structures encroach on the Ye Mou house light ventilation space, or the defendant in the common road for a long time piling up obstacles caused by the plaintiff access to the obstruction. Ye Mou and other repeated unsuccessful negotiations, filed a lawsuit, requesting the court to order the defendant to demolish the illegal building, remove obstacles, in order to remove the obstruction of their real estate rights, and restore the original state.
Applicable Law and Basis of Decision:
The court held that the plaintiff, as the owner of the real estate, enjoyed the legal rights and interests of possession, use and benefit of the real estate, and that others could not unlawfully interfere with it. According to the provisions on the protection of property rights in the Property Rights Section of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China: "Where the right to property is obstructed or may be obstructed, the owner of the right may request the removal of the obstruction or the elimination of the danger". In this case, the Defendant's unauthorized construction/obstruction has constituted a nuisance to the Plaintiff's right of property, which is a tortious and illegal act. According to the relevant provisions of the Civil Code, the plaintiff had the right to request the cessation of the infringement and the removal of the obstruction. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff's claim, and ordered the defendant to remove the unauthorized building, remove the accumulation of materials, and restore the access and the original state of the neighboring environment; if the defendant fails to comply with the deadline, it will be enforced by the relevant departments on behalf of the defendant, and the relevant costs will be borne by the defendant.
Legal Significance:
This case is a typical illustration of the protection of property rights and the handling of neighborly relations. By ordering the exclusion of obstruction, the court safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of the real estate right holders and ensured that the stability and exclusivity of the right of property was realized. The case emphasized that the use of one's own property should not infringe upon the legal rights of others - neighboring parties should follow the principle of fairness and reasonableness in dealing with the relationship, otherwise the infringing party will be held legally responsible. The case provides a model for dealing with neighboring real estate disputes: when illegal construction encroaches on the rights and interests of others or inappropriately occupies a shared passageway, the infringed party can request the removal of obstacles and the restoration of rights and interests through legal channels. The court's decision was strictly based on the provisions of the Civil Code for the protection of property rights, which helped to encourage the public to exercise their rights and fulfill their obligations in accordance with the law, and to reduce private remedies and neighborhood conflicts. This case is also of positive significance in terms of protecting the rights and interests of residents and standardizing community governance, and can be used as a reference standard for adjudicating similar disputes in the future.
Case 10: An Electrical Appliance Company v. A Technology Company Processing Contract Dispute
Case Brief:
This case involves a product processing contract dispute. The plaintiff, an electrical company (the contractor) and the defendant, a science and technology company (the contractor) signed a contract, agreeing that the defendant would process and customize a batch of key parts according to the plaintiff's requirements. The plaintiff provided the design drawings and raw materials, and agreed on the quality standard and delivery period. In the performance of the contract, the defendant delivered the finished product, but part of the product quality is not up to the agreed standard (there is a size deviation or unqualified performance), resulting in the plaintiff can not be used directly for production. The plaintiff refused to pay the remaining remuneration and filed a lawsuit, requesting the defendant to undertake the repair and replacement of the defective products or to compensate for the resulting losses. The defendant argued that it had exercised reasonable care in the process and did not accept that the products were defective.
Applicable Law and Basis of Decision:
The court held that the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was a contract for contracting (processing contract), which was governed by the relevant sections of the Civil Code. According to the Civil Code, if the work delivered by the contractor does not meet the quality requirements, the contractor has the right to choose to require the contractor to repair, remake, reduce the remuneration or compensation for damages and other breach of contract liabilities. In this case, the judicial appraisal or professional organizations test confirmed that some of the parts delivered by the defendant did not meet the technical indicators agreed in the contract, there are defects, constituting improper performance. Accordingly, the court ruled that the defendant a science and technology company breach of contract, should bear the corresponding liability. In view of the plaintiff still need the parts to complete the production, the court ordered the defendant in a reasonable period of time for the unqualified parts for repair, replacement, so that it meets the contract requirements; For the late can not repair or replacement of the part of the plaintiff to allow the plaintiff to purchase their own substitutes, and the defendant to compensate for the plaintiff's additional expenses. In addition, for the delivery delay caused by the plaintiff's production delay, if the evidence proved directly related to the defendant's breach of contract, the court also ordered compensation.
Legal Significance:
This case clarifies the rules applicable to the law on warranty of quality defects and remedies for breach of contract in processing contracts. According to the Civil Code, the contractor must complete the work in accordance with the requirements of the contractor and guarantee the quality, and the contractor has the right to pursue the contractor for breach of contract if the deliverables are substandard. Through the decision, the court emphasized the principle of strict contract and quality first: the contractor should do his best to ensure the quality of the product, otherwise he will be responsible for his own responsibility. The case provides a warning for enterprises to sign and fulfill processing contracts - it is crucial to specify the quality standards and acceptance methods in the contract, and once a party fails to perform according to the contract, it will be liable for the consequences of repairing, replacing or compensating. The outcome of this case balances the actual needs of the plaintiff to obtain qualified products in time for production and the cost of breach of contract borne by the defendant, providing an example for the resolution of similar commercial contract disputes, helping to promote the industry chain parties to abide by the contract and honesty, and safeguarding the security of transactions.
summarize
The ten typical cases released by Changzhou Court in 2024 covered many fields such as execution objection, intellectual property rights, cybercrime, group contract disputes, ecological environment protection, bankruptcy and liquidation, judicial execution authority, labor rights protection, neighboring relationship of property rights, and processing and contracting contract, etc., which comprehensively demonstrated the latest trend of the application of the law and the value orientation of the judicial decisions. These cases clarified some ambiguities and unified the standards of adjudication through the interpretation and application of legal provisions in specific situations. For example, how to protect the rights and interests of outsiders in execution procedures, how to apply traditional theft crimes in new types of telecommunication fraud, and how to implement the protection of special groups in labor disputes, etc., have all been clarified in this year's cases. For judicial practice, the significance of these cases lies not only in the fair handling of individual cases, but also in the leading role of the rules: the court through the release of typical cases, summarize and refine the system of rules that can be referred to and applied to guide the lower courts and judges in the future when encountering similar disputes in accordance with the law to unify the standard of discretion. At the same time, these cases also reflect the positive response of the judiciary to social hotspots and people's concerns. From cases of elderly people's cell phones stealing chargebacks to cases of pregnant female workers defending their rights to environmental resource crimes, the courts have demonstrated a firm stance on handling cases in strict accordance with the law and protecting vulnerable groups and the public interest. This has established a clear legal orientation for all sectors of society, prompting administrative supervision, business operations and even public behavior to be more consciously law-abiding and compliant.
Recommendation:
The judiciary should continue to play the guiding role of typical cases and regularly summarize and publish representative cases in various legal fields for the study and reference of legal practitioners and the public. On the one hand, this helps to enhance judicial transparency and credibility, and allows the public to understand how the courts apply the law and decide what is right and wrong; on the other hand, by refining the rules for adjudicating similar cases, the discretion of judges can be further standardized to ensure that the same case is decided in the same way and that judicial fairness is upheld. In addition, in the process of handling cases, judges should be good at discovering new types of cases in which the existing law is not clear, and timely interpretation through the decision, and recommended legislation or judicial interpretation to be improved. In short, these typical cases are of great significance in promoting the correct application of law, guiding social behavior and improving the rule of law. Judicial practice should fully utilize the results of the cases, and constantly improve the quality and efficiency of the trial to provide better judicial protection for the people.