论文部分内容阅读
6月2日,庞大集团诉5位车主买卖汽车一案在河北滦县人民法院第三审判庭正式开庭。按照庞大集团的起诉理由,2009年3月,被告车主以消费信贷方式从庞大集团下属分公司购买车辆(国Ⅱ排放)后未依约定归还贷款本息。而被诉车主则以双方签订的买卖合同违反国家禁止性规定为由主张该合同无效。该案的特殊性在于,自2008年7月1日重型车排放标准由国Ⅱ升级到国Ⅲ后,国Ⅱ标准重型车被禁止销售。原本简单的欠债还钱问题就演变成买卖合同及其补充协议(该补充协议称,庞大集团在车主购车时已告知该车辆为国Ⅱ标准,车主是在明知该事实的前提下要求购买的,由此产生的一切后果将由车主承担,庞大集团并不负任何责任)是否有效的问题。到目前为止,《商用汽车新闻》记者只看到用户对此事件的描述,而未看到经销商发表意见。为进一步掌握更全面的信息,本期柠檬茶座邀请三位重卡经销商,请他们谈谈对此事件的看法。
June 2, a large group of v. 5 owners vying car case in Hebei Luan County People’s court third trial court. In accordance with the lawsuit of the large group, in March 2009, the defendant did not return the principal and interest of the loan as agreed upon after the vehicle owner bought the vehicle from the subsidiary of the Group under the consumer credit system (State Ⅱ emission). The owner was sued the two sides signed the sale and purchase contract violated the provisions of the national prohibition of the grounds that the contract is invalid. The particularity of the case is that since July 1, 2008 when the emission standard for heavy-duty vehicles has been upgraded from a country II to a country III, national Ⅱ heavy vehicles are forbidden to be sold. The original simple debt repayment problem evolved into a sale and purchase contract and its supplementary agreement (the supplementary agreement that the owners of large vehicles in the car has been informed of the vehicle as a national Ⅱ standard, the owner is aware of the fact that the premise of requiring the purchase of , The resulting consequences will be borne by the owner, a large group does not bear any responsibility) is valid. So far, the reporter of “Commercial Vehicle News” saw only the user’s description of the incident without noticing the dealer’s comment. To further grasp more comprehensive information, this issue of Lemon Cafe invites three heavy truck dealers and asks them to comment on the incident.