The seller should compensate the buyer if the specification of the product was mistake because of contributory negligence

基本案情：

原告给被告发送了一份微信图片，问其是否有如图片上的中央空调销售，被告称现场没有货，如果原告需要，可以帮她调货。然后被告由向被告发送了另外一款产品并推荐给原告，原告未回复。时隔几天后，原告到被告处购买空调，并问是否为其想要的型号，被告说是的，核对过了，由于合同通载明的型号与原告微信图片的型号代码区别不明显，原告就与被告签订了买卖合同。原告支付款项后， 被告安排送货，并提醒原告验货，原告将人在外地，不放便到现场，被告建议请现场施工人员（现场施工人员是被告所安排）验货，原告听从了建议，现场施工人员告诉原告验过了，没问题。原告就让施工人员进行安装。安装结束后，原告来到现场，发现被告销售的货物，不是她想要的款型，于是要求被告更换并赔偿损失。被告不答应。原告遂向人民法院提起诉讼。

Basic case：

The buyer asked the seller whether there’s a central air condition like shows of the picture in her telephone. The seller said there’s no in their shop now, but they could help her preserve it. Simultaneously the seller recommended the other type product which looked like the one that the buyer described through the picture from the code of product in written. Some days latter, the buyer informed the seller she wanted to purchase a central air conditioner. The seller sent the code of the product which the seller recommended and asked whether what you wanted was this type. Because there’s no obvious distinction between the one recommended by the seller and the one shown by the buyer in the code of the product, the buyer said yes.

After the buyer paid, the seller delivered the commodity to the buyer in her house and asked her to verified it. The buyer vested the installment workers hired by the seller to inspect it, then these workers installed the equipment. When the buyer came to the house, she found the commodity wasn’t the commodity she wanted, so she required the seller to change the commodity. The seller didn’t consent. The buyer brought a litigation to the basic people’s court against the seller for indemnity and changing the commodity.

不利因素：

        1.销售货物的型号确为买卖合同中载明的型号；

        2.销售方将货物送达后，通知原告进行验货；

        3.原告主张的款型价格远远高于实际销售的货物。

Unfavorable factors：

1. The code of the commodity installed is the same as the equipment code specified in the contract signed by them;

2. The seller had informed the buyer to verify the commodity after the commodity was delivered to her house.

3. The price of the commodity which code was said by the buyer is much higher than the installed one.

抗辩思路：

       1.两款产品的型号代码非常相似，普通消费者难以识别；

       2.卖方有义务核实原告真正想要的款型；

       3.因为验收人员是被告聘请的，所以是自我验收，此情况下验收无效；

       4.被告应当承担更多的责任，因为被告是商家，相比消费者，应当据有更专业的知识。

Coping strategies：

1. There’s no obvious distinction between the commodities from their code ;

2. The seller should be compelled to verify which one was really required by the customer when the customer had expressed which one she wanted to buy.

3. The inspector of the equipment is hired by the seller, so the inspection is void because of conflict of  benefit;

4. The seller should assume more liability because business owners more specialized knowledge than customer.

判决结果：

        一审驳回了原告的诉讼请求，二审期间，被告同意向原告赔偿损失，最终调解结案。

Judgement or consequence：

The basic people’s court rebutted the buyer’s request, during the period of appellation, the seller proposed to indemnify damage to the buyer, they negotiated a mediation agreement presided by the intermediate court.