|
|
|
No. 2 of Ten Model Maritime Cases Published by the Supreme People's Court in 2016: Wartsila Finland Oy and Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor B.V. v. Rongcheng Xixiakou Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. and Yingqin Engines (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. for Dispute over Tort in the Sales of Ship Equipment
|
|
2016年全国法院海事审判十大典型案例之二：瓦锡兰芬兰有限公司（Wartsila Finland Oy）、西特福船运公司（Spliethoff`s Bevrachtingskantoor B.V.）与西特福船运公司、颖勤发动机（上海）有限公司船舶设备买卖侵权纠纷案
|
|
【法宝引证码】
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| No. 2 of Ten Model Maritime Cases Published by the Supreme People's Court in 2016: Wartsila Finland Oy and Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor B.V. v. Rongcheng Xixiakou Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. and Yingqin Engines (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. for Dispute over Tort in the Sales of Ship Equipment | | 2016年全国法院海事审判十大典型案例之二：瓦锡兰芬兰有限公司（Wartsila Finland Oy）、西特福船运公司（Spliethoff`s Bevrachtingskantoor B.V.）与西特福船运公司、颖勤发动机（上海）有限公司船舶设备买卖侵权纠纷案 |
| [Basic Facts] | | 【基本案情】 |
| On June 3, 2006, Rongcheng Xixiakou Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Xixiakou Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.”) and Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor B.V. (hereinafter referred to as “Spliethoff B.V.”) concluded two shipbuilding contracts, which stipulated that Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company built two 12500 multi-purpose vessels (No. 038 and No. 039) for Spliethoff B.V. at the price of USD 20.49 million for each vessel. Both parties also concluded a supplementary agreement that Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company must use main engines of Wartsila Finland Oy (hereinafter referred to as “Wartsila Oy”). On January 17, 2007, Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company and Wartsila Oy concluded two agreements on the purchase of main engines and propelling systems. At that time, the two agreements were signed by the sales manager of Yingqin Engines (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. on behalf of Wartsila Oy and the general manager of Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company. Afterwards, Spliethoff B.V. consigned the main engines purchased from Wartsila Oy to Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company, which also paid the corresponding price. Since Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company failed to deliver the vessels within the time limit as stipulated in the contracts, on July 13, 2009, Spliethoff B.V. rescinded the contract on the purchase of No. 038 vessel. In April 2011, When debugging the main engine of No. 038 vessel, engineers of Yingqin Company identified that the oil pressure for trial voyage did not meet the requirements and they sent an email to Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company, alleging that: After consulting the engine records, we found that the engine of No. 038 vessel was an old Wartsila engine purchased by Spliethoff B.V. and the engine was refurnished in a Dutch factory and then was sold to Wartsila Oy. Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company entrusted a maritime judicial appraisal institution to appraise that the main engines of the two vessels were refurnished second-hand ones. With respect to issues concerning the main engine of No. 038 vessel, Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company filed a tort action with the Qingdao Maritime Court. On the ground that Yingqin Company, Wartsila Oy, and Spliethoff B.V. passed old engines off as new ones for sales and their acts constituted commercial fraud, Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company required that the three companies should “provide one set of the same main engine and propelling system as agreed on in the contract” and the three companies should jointly and severally compensate for derogation of the vessel and other losses. Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company also filed a similar lawsuit with respect to issues concerning the main engine of No. 039 vessel, and the case facts and the final handling results were similar to those of No. 0.38 vessel. | | 西霞口船业与西特福公司于2006年6月3日同时签订两份船舶建造合同，约定西霞口船业为西特福公司建造12500型多用途船舶二艘（038号轮、039号轮），每艘造价均为2049万美元。双方补充约定西霞口船业必须使用瓦锡兰主机。西霞口船业与瓦锡兰公司于2007年1月17日签订两份主机及推进系统购买协议，该两份协议当时由颖勤公司销售经理代瓦锡兰公司与西霞口船业总经理签署。后西特福公司将瓦锡兰主机托运给西霞口船业，西霞口船业也支付了相应价款。因西霞口船业未能在合同约定的期限内交付船舶，西特福公司于2009年7月13日解除了038号轮的买卖合同。2011年4月，颖勤公司工程师在负责调试038号轮主机时，发现试航油压达不到要求，给西霞口船业发送邮件称：通过查阅发动机记录，038号轮的发动机系西特福公司购买的一款旧的瓦锡兰发动机，在荷兰工厂翻新后卖给了瓦锡兰公司。西霞口船业委托海事司法鉴定机构鉴定该两轮主机均为翻新二手新主机。西霞口船业就038号轮主机问题向青岛海事法院提起侵权之诉，以颖勤公司、瓦锡兰公司、西特福公司用旧机器冒充新机器出售构成商业欺诈为由，请求该三公司“按合同约定提供同样的主发动机、推进系统一台套”，连带赔偿船舶贬损及其他损失。西霞口船业就039号轮主机问题提起类似诉讼，案情和最终处理结果与038号轮案类同。 |
| ．．．．．． | | 【裁判结果】 |
| | 青岛海事法院一审认为，本案事实和证据足以证明颖勤公司、瓦锡兰公司、西特福公司共同实施了以二手主机冒充新主机卖给西霞口船业并安装到新船上的欺诈行为，应当承担连带侵权责任。据此，判决支持西霞口船业的诉讼请求。颖勤公司、瓦锡兰公司、西特福公司不服，提起上诉，山东省高级人民法院二审亦认为瓦锡兰公司和西特福公司共同对西霞口船业实施了欺诈，但由于西霞口船业没有提交证据证明颖勤公司在签订合同时知道或应当知道涉案主机为二手主机，颖勤公司不应承担侵权责任。二审与一审判决结论基本相同，仅未支持西霞口船业要求侵权人赔偿推进系统和垫付船款的贷款利息之主张。瓦锡兰公司和西特福公司不服二审判决，申请再审。最高人民法院再审认为，本案再审审理重点涉及欺诈行为与侵权责任等问题的认定。船舶主机是船舶最关键的部件之一，在船舶建造中普遍存在买方或者委托方指定船用主机生产供应商和型号的情况，不能根据西特福公司明确要求使用瓦锡兰公司生产的主机的事实认定该公司具有与他人串通提供旧主机的主观恶意；西特福公司因西霞口船业未按期交船而解除合同，但船舶建造进度由西霞口船业掌控，西特福公司弃船的行为也不能认定其在缔约时即有预谋；本案有关证据不能证明西特福公司、颖勤公司在瓦锡兰公司于交付发动机及推进系统以前知道或者应当知道发动机为翻新旧发动机，不能证明西特福公司、颖勤公司与瓦锡兰公司有恶意串通的情形。西霞口船业请求西特福公司、颖勤公司承担共同侵权责任，缺乏事实和法律依据。本案中，西霞口船业的相关请求均是基于合同的约定，属于违约损失的范畴，在性质上属于合同债权。本案没有证据表明瓦锡兰公司提供旧主机使西霞口船业遭受合同履行本身及可得利益等合同债权之外的损害。合同相对人之间单纯的合同债权属于合同法调整范围，而不属于侵权责任法调整范围。对于单纯合同履行利益，原则上应坚持根据合同法保护，不应支持当事人寻求侵权责任救济。西霞口船业就其合同履行利益损失请求合同相对方瓦锡兰公司承担侵权责任，没有法律依据。最高人民法院再审判决，撤销本案一、二审判决，驳回西霞口船业的诉讼请求。 |
| | ．．．．．． |
Dear visitor,you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases . If you are not a subscriber, please subscribe . Should you have any questions, please contact us at:
+86 (10) 8268-9699 or +86 (10) 8266-8266 (ext. 153)
Mobile: +86 133-1157-0713
Fax: +86 (10) 8266-8268
database@chinalawinfo.com
| |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区，如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户，请注册并交纳相应费用成为我们的英文会员 。如有问题请来电咨询；
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content
found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright
owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.
Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations
of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language
versions as the final authority. lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly
or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.
We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve
the quality of our materials.
|
|
| |
|
|