Product quality liability for breach of contract and tort liability compete with each other, how to

First, product quality disputes must occur in the field of contract, and product tort liability is only based on the general premise of the contract, not the existence of a contractual relationship as a necessary premise for the occurrence of product tort liability. Product quality disputes are based on the existence of the original contractual relationship as a necessary premise, and there is no product quality dispute without a contract. However, on the one hand, the tort liability of the product is not caused by the contractual relationship, and this tort is caused by the object, not the damage caused by the act; On the other hand, many victims of infringement of Heyun products are not parties to the contractual relationship.

Second, the fact of damage in a product quality dispute is the loss of the value of the product itself and other indirect losses caused by it, while the fact of damage caused by product tort liability is personal injury or damage to other property other than the product. This is the most important difference between product quality disputes and product tort liability.

Third, the cause of damage caused by product tort liability is the object, which is caused by the product provided by the manufacturer or seller that causes damage to person or property, and the harm is caused by the object, not the act; The cause of the damage caused by the product quality dispute is the breach of contract, which is the damage caused by the breach of contract.

Fourth, the principle of no-fault liability applies to the determination of product tort liability, so that the element of fault is not required for liability to be constituted. However, a product quality dispute is a contractual liability, which constitutes a liability for breach of contract, and must have the element of subjective fault, although the determination of such fault is determined in the form of a presumption, and the breaching party must provide counter-evidence to overturn this presumption. However, this element is not required at all for product infringement liability.

1. What are the circumstances under which the reversal of the burden of proof applies to tort liability disputes?

1) In a patent infringement lawsuit arising from an invention patent for a manufacturing method of a new product, the unit or individual that manufactures the same product shall bear the burden of proof that the manufacturing method of the product is different from the patented process;

2) In tort lawsuits where damage is caused by highly dangerous operations, the perpetrator bears the burden of proof on the fact that the victim intentionally caused the damage;

3) In litigation for compensation for damages caused by environmental pollution, the perpetrator bears the burden of proving that there is no causal relationship between the reasons for exemption from liability provided by law and that there is no causal relationship between the conduct and the result of the damage;

4) In tort litigation where a building or other facility or a shelving or hanging object on a building collapses, falls off, or falls and causes damage to a person, the owner or manager shall bear the burden of proof that it is not at fault;

5) In tort litigation where the animal is raised and causes harm to a person, the animal keeper or manager bears the burden of proof that the victim is at fault or that a third party is at fault;

6) In a tort lawsuit for damage caused by a defective product, the manufacturer of the product shall bear the burden of proof for the reasons for exemption provided by law;

7) In tort litigation where harm is caused by joint dangerous conduct, the person who carried out the dangerous act bears the burden of proving that there is no causal relationship between his conduct and the result of the harm;

8) In tort litigation arising from medical acts, the medical institution bears the burden of proof that there is no causal relationship between the medical act and the result of the injury and that there is no medical fault.

The competition between liability for breach of contract and liability for tort refers to the fact that when one party breaches the contract, it not only causes damage to the other party's contractual rights, i.e., creditor's rights (relative rights), and violates the contractual obligations, but also infringes.

Harming the person or property of the other party, causing damage to the personal rights or property rights (absolute rights) of the other party, and violating statutory obligations.

Article 122 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that if the personal and property rights and interests of the other party are infringed upon due to the breach of contract of one party or one party, the injured party has the right to choose to require it to bear liability for breach of contract in accordance with this law or to require it to bear tort liability in accordance with other laws. This provision means that the victim can only choose one form of responsibility to make a claim, and the court can only satisfy the victim's request, and cannot make both responsibilities apply at the same time.

1. Competition and cooperation are prohibited. That is to say, the parties to the contract shall not regard the breach of contract of the other party as a tort, and tort liability will only arise when there is no contractual relationship. It is held that the debtor who bears a contractual obligation cannot foresee the tort liability outside the contractual relationship, but can only foresee the scope of its debt and the consequences of non-performance.

2. Limit competition. That is, in principle, it recognizes the competing liabilities, but there are certain restrictions on the choice of litigation. It is held that the plaintiff has the right of action with a dual cause of action only if the defendant violates both the legal norms of contract and the legal norms of tort, and the subsequent violation of the legal norms of tort constitutes infringement even in the absence of a contractual relationship.

At the same time, the two types of compensation and banquet liability shall not be mutually exclusive.

3. Allow and choose coopetition. That is, the plaintiff can file a contract lawsuit or a tort lawsuit based on the two claims arising from the illegal acts. In addition, if one claim is rejected due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, another claim may be exercised.

It is believed that the legal norms of contract and tort should not only apply to typical breaches of contract and torts, but also apply to both illegal acts.

Legal basis: Civil Code of the People's Republic of China Article 1167 Where the tortious act endangers the personal or property safety of others, the infringed party has the right to request the infringer to bear tort liabilities such as stopping the infringement, removing obstacles, and eliminating the danger of the Tanyan Rock.