Defendant: A Sportswear (Hangzhou) Co. Ltd.
Legal representative: L, director of the board.
Address: Jianggan District, Hangzhou, China.
The following statement is hereby given to the claim of W and R for compensation by A Sportswear (Hangzhou) Co. Ltd. For the damage to property in the disputed of house renting contract:
1. The defendant shall not bear the responsibility of the fire accident, and the lessor should bear the risk of the damage and loss of the leasehold.
Fire broke out in No.12 building on May 27, 200*. All the property in the apartment was burned out, although without injuries and deaths. After investigation on the spot, the fire department of X District Public Security Bureau issued the Fire Accident Police Reports, which says: “The cause of the fire is unknown.” Therefore, there is no evidence to prove that it is the defendant that caused this accident.
The site of the accident was the abiding place of the legal representative of the defendant and his family, which was an apartment rented from the plaintiff W. During the lease term, the apartment was only used as a living and resting place, without doing any cooking in it, and no child living together, and the fire happened at 3:40 in the early morning, which is the deep sleep time and usually nearly no activities of human being during that time. Therefore, there is hardly any possibility that the occupiers of the apartment at that time caused the fire. Instead, it is most possible that the household electrical appliances and the aged wiring in the apartment, and the bad maintenance of them was the cause of the fire in the wee hours.
The defendant is not liable for the damages, according to the provisions of art. 218 of the Contract Law of the People‘s Republic of China which provides that where the lessee uses the lease item in the agreed manner or in a manner consistent with its nature, thereby causing wear and tear to the lease item, it is not liable for damages, and the art. 231 of the same law that where the lease item is damaged or lost in part or in whole due to any reason not attributable to the lessee, the lessee may require reduction in rent or refuse to pay rent; where the purpose of the contract can not be achieved due to damage to or loss of the lease item in part or in whole, the lessee may terminate the contract. The defendant’s action constituted no breach of contract, and the fire was not caused by the defendant, therefore, the defendant is not liable for the damages.
2. The plaintiffs failed to perform their obligation of safety.
The safety of lease house and the lessees is the lessor’s responsibility. Art. 25 of the Administrative Regulation on House Lease of Zhejiang Province provides that the lessor is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the lease house and the facilities in it to ensure the resident safety and normal residence and usage. And art. 10 in the house leasing contract in this case stipulated that party A (the lessor) shall ensure the safety of residence and usage, and he is responsible for the regular inspection and maintenance and repair of the lease item at the lessor's own expense; If party A delayed the repair and party B (the lessee) or a third party sustains losses caused by party A’s delay, party A is liable for the compensation. Therefore, the plaintiffs bear the obligations of ensuring resident safety in accordance with either the law or the contract.
During two years of the lease term which is from July 1st, 200*, the plaintiffs had never been seen to perform their obligation of the regular inspection and maintenance and repair of the lease item. Consequently, the plaintiffs infringed their obligations of ensuring resident safety, and therefore shall bear the responsibility of the damages in the fire.
3. There is no legal ground for the plaintiffs claim.
Firstly, this is a leasing contract dispute case, which shall apply the principle of strict liability. Art. 107 in the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China provides: If a party fails to perform its obligations under a contract, or its performance fails to satisfy the terms of the contract, it shall bear the liabilities for breach of contract such as to continue to perform its obligations, to take remedial measures, or to compensate for losses. Therefore, according to the principle of strict liability in art. 107, nonperformance of an obligation and the causality between the act and the consequence is the requisites of the establishment of the principle of strict liability.
Secondly, the defendant should not bear responsibility of breach of contract, for he performed his obligations and exercised his rights stipulated in the house leasing contract, without any breaches.
Lastly, there is no factual ground for the plaintiffs claim for the fire damages and the claim does not accord with the liability principle of contract law, because the cause of the fire is unknown and the plaintiffs has no evidence to prove the defendant’s wrongs according to the art. 222 of contract law which provides: The lessee shall keep the lease item with due care and shall be liable for damages if the lease item is damaged or lost due to improper care.
4. The principle of fair liability is not applicable in this case.
This is a contract dispute case, in which the principle of strict liability is applicable. The defendant should not bear responsibility of breach of contract because of no breach.
According to Art. 132 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, which provides:If none of the parties are at fault in causing damage, they may share civil liability according to the actual circumstances, the premise to apply the principle of fair liability is no fault and no constructive fault of both parties and no situations of applying the principle of liability without fault. In this case, although the cause of the fire is unknown, the personal factor cannot be excluded from the cause of the fire. Therefore, the fire is not a force majeure event or an accidental one. That is to say, either of the parties is at fault in causing the fire. Thereby, it follows that it lacks the premise of no fault of both parties to apply the principle of fair liability.
5. The defendant is entitled to take judicial proceedings against the plaintiffs in separate action for the his damages in the fire, by reason of the plaintiffs’ nonperformance of the obligations of the regular inspection and ensuring resident safety.
To: X District People's Court
Defendant: A Sportswear (Hangzhou) Co. Ltd.
Date: June 10th, 200*
