[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over a construction contract. On April 3, 2022, the plaintiff, Beijing * Landscape Engineering Co., Ltd. (the plaintiff), and the defendant, Beijing * Landscape Technology Co., Ltd. (the defendant), signed a contract, under which the defendant was responsible for the construction of the basketball court and table tennis court in XX Park, with a total contract price of 330,100 yuan and a warranty period of one year. However, the defendant encountered issues such as bubbling, bulging, and insufficient thickness during the construction process and refused to make repairs. The plaintiff subsequently entrusted Beijing Hengluo Law Firm to handle the case.Wang FangliThe lawyer filed a lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiff, with the core disputes being the attribution of responsibility for the quality of the project and the amount of compensation for losses. The applicable legal provisions are the relevant provisions of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China. The court ruled that the defendant should compensate the plaintiff for losses of 50,000 yuan.

I. Review of the Case Facts

Engineered quality assurance disputes are often searched for terms such as "Who is responsible for the bulging and cracking of the plastic project?", "What should be done if the construction unit refuses to repair during the warranty period?", and "How to claim compensation for unqualified project quality?" On April 3, 2022, the plaintiff and the defendant signed a "Contract", stipulating that the defendant would undertake the construction of the plastic project (basketball court and table tennis court) located in XX Park, with a total project price of 330,100 yuan. The fees would be paid in advance and the construction would proceed after the payment. The warranty period would be one year. After the contract was signed, the plaintiff fulfilled its payment obligations as agreed, but the defendant encountered problems such as bubbling and bulging during the construction process. The defendant repaired the project while it was being constructed, and left the site without notifying the plaintiff to conduct the acceptance inspection after the project was completed.

In February 2023, the plaintiff inspected the site and found a large number of cracks and bulges. The plaintiff notified the defendant to repair them, but the defendant refused to do so. The plaintiff then asked other parties to inspect the site and found that the thickness of the plastic did not meet the agreed standards. The defendant refused to make repairs, citing reasons such as the repairs being outside the warranty scope. The plaintiff then entrusted Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Wang FangliThe lawyer filed a lawsuit on behalf of the client, demanding that the defendant be ordered to pay the maintenance fee of 98034 yuan and the notarization fee of 10000 yuan.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Were the quality problems of the project involved caused by the defendant's construction, and who should bear the responsibility?The lawyer submitted a notarized video proving that the thickness was insufficient, and the defendant was obligated to provide warranty service during the warranty period.
  • Focus Two: Whether the maintenance fees and notarization fees claimed by the plaintiff should be supported and the amount thereof.The court determines the amount of compensation based on the circumstances of the case.
  • Focus 3: Can the project be considered qualified even if it has not been inspected and accepted?The court ruled that even in the face of the pandemic, the defendant should have conducted a reasonable acceptance inspection after notifying the plaintiff. If the acceptance inspection was not carried out, the goods would be deemed as qualified, and the defendant should bear responsibility for this.

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Law Firm

The plaintiff alleged that (the landscape company) :The plaintiff claimed that after the defendant completed the project, there were a large number of quality problems such as gaps and bulges. The plaintiff submitted a notarized certificate (with videos attached) taken at the scene of the case in March 2023, proving that the thickness measured from multiple samples did not meet the contractual requirements. During the warranty period, the defendant was obligated to provide warranty services but refused to do so, so the plaintiff demanded that the defendant pay the repair costs of 98034 yuan and the notarization fee of 10000 yuan.

The defendant (Garden Technology Company) argued that:The defendant claimed that the location of the sampling point was unreasonable, and the relevant circumstances did not fall within the scope of the warranty stipulated in the contract, refusing to make repairs and provide compensation.

Hengluo Lawyer's Representation Opinion:Wang FangliThe lawyer worked closely with the client to review the contract and materials and formulate a litigation strategy. The lawyer argued that the contract signed by the two parties was legal and valid, and that the plaintiff had paid according to the agreement. However, the defendant failed to fulfill its obligation to repair or compensate for the numerous quality issues such as large cracks that appeared on-site after the completion of the project. The notarized video materials submitted by our side proved that the PU thickness in multiple areas was significantly lower than the agreed standard. During the warranty period, the defendant was obligated to provide warranty services, and in the event of refusal to repair, it should compensate for reasonable losses.

IV. Outcome of the case

The court adopted some of the opinions of Henglue Law Firm and ultimately ruled that the defendant should compensate the plaintiff for the losses of 50,000 yuan. The court held that, after the completion of the project in question, the defendant notified the plaintiff. Even if there was an impact of the pandemic, the defendant should have carried out the acceptance within a reasonable period. However, the project was not accepted for a long time, and the defendant was responsible for this. Therefore, the project in question should be deemed to have been accepted as agreed upon. The existing evidence is insufficient to prove that the quality problems were caused by the defendant, so the plaintiff's claim that the defendant should bear responsibility for issues such as cracking is not accepted. Regarding the issue of insufficient thickness of silicone PU, the plaintiff submitted notarized video materials as evidence. Although the defendant claimed that the sampling points were unreasonable, during the warranty period, the thickness of many parts of the site was significantly lower than the agreed standard. The defendant has the obligation to provide warranty services. In the absence of repair, the defendant should compensate for reasonable losses. Based on the specific circumstances, the court determined the compensation amount to be 50,000 yuan according to law.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Reminder

This case is represented by Attorney Wang Fangli of Beijing Henglu Law Firm (practice license number: 11101201911086939, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ). After the completion of the construction project, the construction unit is obliged to notify the owner for acceptance and warranty; if any quality problems below the contractual standards occur during the warranty period and the construction unit refuses to repair them, the employer may entrust a third party to repair them and claim reasonable losses. It is necessary to fix the evidence of quality defects through notarization, video recording, etc., and to specify the sampling and testing locations.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Construction Project-Related Cases

  1. Q: Who is responsible for the bulging and cracking of plastic products in engineering projects?
    A:During the warranty period, if the thickness or quality of the materials is lower than what was agreed in the contract, and this is verified by notarization or other means, the construction unit shall be obligated to provide warranty services. If the construction unit refuses to provide warranty services, it shall compensate for the reasonable losses incurred.
  2. Q: What should I do if the construction unit refuses to repair the project within the warranty period?
    A:You can entrust a third party to repair and preserve the invoices, and claim the maintenance fees and reasonable expenses from the construction unit. Be sure to fix the quality evidence.
  3. Q: Is the project considered qualified even if it hasn't been inspected and accepted?
    A:After the construction unit notifies the employer to conduct the acceptance, if the employer fails to accept the project within a reasonable period, the project may be deemed to have passed the acceptance. Therefore, the employer should organize the acceptance in a timely manner.
  4. Q: How to claim compensation if the engineering quality fails to meet standards?
    A:Submit contracts, notarization videos, inspection reports, and other evidence to prove that the products do not meet standards, and claim warranty obligations and compensation; the court will determine the amount of compensation based on the specific circumstances.
  5. Q: Can I ask the other party to bear the notarization fee?
    A:If it is a necessary expense for a fixed quality defect and is supported by the court, it can be claimed together with the compensation for losses, but the final decision shall be subject to the court's determination.