| Judicial agencies often fail to effectively distinguish between defective performance and fraud when trying to perform contract cases.In the case of "Wang and a certain HVAC company undertaking contract dispute," the two parties had disputes around two focal points of dispute,namely whether a certain HVAC company’s actions constituted fraud and the issue of liability for breach of contract.Fraud has the following three situations: one party or a third party has the intention to deceive in the process of concluding the contract;the fraudster has committed fraud;due to the influence of the fraudster’s active behavior,the fraudster has a misunderstanding and makes a non-compliance.The deceived person’s intention.The conduct of a HVAC company in this case does not fall into any of the fraud cases.Defective performance elements are divided into positive elements and negative elements.The positive elements include: there is a legal and effective debt between the parties to the contract;there is a positive performance;the performance does not conform to the agreement or legal conditions.Negative elements refer to exceptional circumstances,which need to be excluded from the relevant provisions of exemption circumstances.The behavior of a HVAC company is a flawed performance in the contract performance problem.When judicial organs try such cases,they have over-protected consumers,which put the interests of consumers in a dilemma.According to the specific circumstances of the case,we must respect the wishes of the parties and protect the relevant rights and interests of the contract performer.Only in this way can we achieve the fairness and justice advocated by the law.Our country’s laws,regulations,and judicial operations are flawed in handling similar cases and need to be further improved. |
