Data

Date:: 09-02-2017
Country:: China
Number:
Court:: Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court
Parties:: Shandong Gaotang Lanshan Group Co v Zhou Zhizheng

Keywords

DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO CHINESE PARTIES - REFERENCE BY ONE OF THE PARTIES TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - CHINESE COURT CONFIRMING THE SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE CLAIMANT EVEN IF WITHOUT CLEAR REFERENCE TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES

DEFINITION OF FRAUD - REFERENCE TO ART. 3.2.5 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN ORDER TO CONFIRM THE SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER APPLICABLE CHINESE LAW

Abstract

The defendant company’s advertisement of its health products was held to constitute ‘fraudulent’ conduct. Counsel for the defendant contended that the plaintiff failed to show deliberateness on the part of the defendant, relying upon the definition of ‘fraud’ under the PICC.

There is some uncertainty as to what, if any, subjective element must be proved by a plaintiff making out a case of ‘fraud’ under Chinese law. By holding that the false advertisement constituted an act of fraud, the appellate court appeared not impressed by counsel’s contention. Nevertheless, the decision confirmed that Chinese law, like Article 3.2.5 of the PICC, did not require an immoral or malicious intention for the purpose of showing ‘fraud’.

Summary of the decision extracted from Qiao Liu, The PICC in Chinese Courts, Uniform Law Review, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp. 472–491

Fulltext

}}

Source

}}