论文部分内容阅读
案例介绍:2010年7月,甲公司与乙公司签订购买乙公司一台混凝土搅拌机的合同,型号为JDC500,价款5万余元。甲公司一次性支付了全部货款,并于付款当天取得该混凝土搅拌机。使用两个月后,该混凝土搅拌机出现故障,在维修过程中,甲公司发现该混凝土搅拌机的型号是JDC350,不是合同中约定的JDC500。甲公司多次找到乙公司讨要说法无果,无奈之下甲公司将乙公司告上法庭。经过审理,法院以甲公司超过一年的撤销期间,已丧失撤销权为由,驳回了甲公司的诉讼请求。律师分析:本案中,乙公
Case Presentation: In July 2010, Company A and Company B entered into a contract to purchase a concrete mixer from Company B with a model number of JDC500 and the price of RMB 50,000 yuan. Company A lump sum paid all the money, and made the concrete mixer on the day of payment. After two months of use, the concrete mixer failed. During the repair, Company A found that the type of concrete mixer was JDC350, which is not the JDC500 stipulated in the contract. A company repeatedly found to discuss the company B no choice, desperation a company B will be brought to court. After hearing the case, the court rejected the claim of Company A on the grounds that during the period of revocation of Company A over one year, it has already lost the right of revocation. Lawyer Analysis: In this case, B