The plaintiff and the defendant signed an "Industrial Products Sales Contract" on X, month, X, and the defendant supplied springs to the plaintiff. According to the contract, the goods arrived at the plaintiff's site and were inspected. They did not meet the technical standards and had quality problems. The plaintiff raised quality objections during the acceptance period and requested the defendant to return the goods, but so far the defendant has not received any response. Therefore, the plaintiff went to court as mentioned above.
Our company was entrusted by the court to undertake the quality analysis of the "spring" involved in this case.
identification and analysis results: The
quality analysis expert group discussed and comprehensively technical analyzed the relevant information, on-site investigation and inspection, and inspection and testing data of the "spring" involved in the case, and made the following quality analysis opinions: The hardness of the "spring" involved in the case of
has been tested and complies with the requirements of the GB/T23934-2015 standard. However, compliance with the standard requirements does not mean that the spring characteristics also meet the specified requirements. Judging from the existing damaged springs, they were damaged shortly after installation and worked normally after being replaced with new springs. No matter what the reason was, the springs involved in the case could not meet the actual working needs. In summary, the processing quality of this batch of springs did not meet the quality requirements of both parties in the industrial product sales contract.
