电池衰减不符约定指标 买方如何维权？

Core Viewpoint - The court ruled against a bus company's request to terminate a contract and demand a full refund for defective batteries, stating that the contract's purpose had been partially fulfilled and that allowing termination would create an imbalance in rights and obligations between the parties [1][2][3]. Group 1: Contractual Obligations and Disputes - The bus company and the battery supplier had a contract that included a five-year or 200,000-kilometer warranty, with a stipulation that battery capacity should not fall below 80% during the warranty period [1][2]. - After three years, the bus company claimed that the batteries had degraded too quickly, leading to insufficient vehicle range, and sought to terminate the contract and receive a full refund [1][2]. - The battery supplier acknowledged the degradation but argued that it was a natural phenomenon and offered to assist with repairs and provide backup batteries [2][3]. Group 2: Court's Rationale - The court found that while the battery supplier had breached the contract by not meeting the degradation standards, the breach did not fundamentally prevent the contract's purpose from being achieved [2][3]. - The batteries were delivered in compliance with the contract, and by the time of the dispute, they had been used for nearly three years, with mileage close to or exceeding two-thirds of the warranty limit [2][4]. - The court emphasized that allowing the bus company to unilaterally terminate the contract would unfairly benefit them, as they would have used the batteries for over three years without payment [5][6]. Group 3: Implications for the Industry - The case highlights the challenges in the rapidly evolving new energy sector, particularly regarding the performance and degradation of batteries [4][6]. - The court's decision reflects a need to balance consumer rights with the sustainable development of the new energy industry, ensuring that legal interpretations do not hinder technological advancements [4][6]. - The ruling suggests that courts may adopt a more lenient approach towards performance defects caused by technical challenges, promoting innovation while maintaining fairness in contractual relationships [6].