The owner of the community is dissatisfied with the property service and removes the billboards in the elevator, which can cause considerable losses to an advertising media company. But this loss, who should I pay for compensation? Recently, the Xiaoxi Court of Shijiazhuang publicly heard a case of an advertising contract dispute.
In 2017, an advertising media company signed a cooperation agreement on the use of building advertisements with a residential property, stipulating that the advertising operation rights of elevators in Building 1-3 of the residential area belong to an advertising media company. After the agreement was signed, an advertising media company installed billboards in the community elevator. In April 2018, due to a dispute between the owner of the community and the property, the owners took the billboards in the elevator. After the accident, an advertising media company repeatedly asked the property to discuss the claim. The two parties had been unable to talk about the amount of compensation. Therefore, an advertising media company sued the property for the court.
During the trial, an advertising media company required property compensation for billboard losses and default losses totaling 56,000 yuan. The defendant, a property company, believes that the billboards are picked up by the owners and they should not be liable for compensation.
Whether the defendant should bear the liability for breach of contract
The Xiaoxi Court held that, according to the "Contract Law of the People's Republic of China", "one of the parties who violates the contract due to the third party's reasons shall be liable to the other party for breach of contract, and the dispute between the party and the third party shall be in accordance with the law. Or by agreement." The plaintiff placed advertisements in the elevators managed by the defendant. During the performance of the contract, the advertising framework was removed by the community owner, resulting in the contract between the original and the defendant not being able to continue. In this case, even if the defendant did not have fault, the defendant There is a property service contract relationship with the owner who removes the advertising framework. The original and defendant's contract cannot be fulfilled due to the owner's behavior, thus causing the defendant to default, and the defendant should be liable to the plaintiff for breach of contract according to the above-mentioned laws.
The agreement signed by the original and the defendant is true and valid, and both parties shall perform their respective obligations according to the contract. If one party fails to perform the contract or fulfills the contractual obligations and does not meet the agreement, it shall undertake to continue to perform, take remedial measures or compensate. Liability for breach of contract, etc. According to the contract between the original and the defendant, "in the contract period, if the advertising screen is often damaged due to human factors, causing Party B to suffer serious losses, resulting in failure to operate normally, Party B has the right to request termination of the contract; The use time calculation, the remaining part returned to Party B within three days, because the advertising framework was removed, resulting in the contract can not continue to perform, therefore, the remaining advertising period corresponding to the advertising costs 1,302 yuan, the defendant should return to the report.
How to determine the loss claimed by the plaintiff
In addition to the refund of the advertising fee, the defendant shall also be liable to the plaintiff for compensation for the loss. The plaintiff claimed that the advertising framework lost 9,600 yuan. However, after the incident, the plaintiff did not timely count the number of damaged frames and retained the damage, and the defendant did not recognize the fact that all advertising frames were destroyed. The plaintiff failed to prove the facts, which led to the inability to identify the number of destroyed frames. And the degree, combined with the testimony of the advertising framework stated by the plaintiff's witness Shimou, and taking into account the depreciation of the advertising framework, the court, as appropriate, supports the plaintiff to propose 30% of the price, which is 2880 yuan.
The court did not support the losses incurred by the plaintiff in the compensation of third parties because the evidence provided by the plaintiff was incomplete.
Finally, the court ruled that the defendant returned a property company to return an advertising service fee of 1,302 yuan, and the elevator frame lost 2,880 yuan, a total of 15,882 yuan.
This article tags: elevator elevator advertising elevator property elevator installation elevator maintenance