本案虽系装饰装修工程，但涉案合同系商业酒店装饰装修合同，与家庭装饰装修存在区别，对施工人员 的资质有强制性规定。《最高人民法院关于审理建设工程施工合同纠纷案件适用法律问题的解释 （一）》第一条第一款第（一）项规定：承包人未取得建筑施工企业资质或超越资质等级的，所签订的 建筑工程施工合同无效，承包人未取得建筑工程施工企业资质或超越资质等级的，应依法认定无效。依 据《中华人民共和国民法典》第七百九十三条规定：建设工程施工合同无效，但是建设工程经验收合格 的，可以参照合同关于工程价款的约定折价补偿承包人。最终，法院依法支持了老李的诉请，让拖欠老 李十年的装修费最终得以履行。 锦旗是荣誉，更是责任，下一步大荔法院将继续践行司法为民理念，惠民生、解民忧、暖民心，努力办 好每一起案件，让人民群众在每一个司法案件中感受到公平正义。 编辑：贾珮椄 "法官，太感谢你们了，我的装修款执行到位了，拖欠我十年了，你们终于为我主持公道了，我要为你 们送锦旗……"。原告老李冲到办公室，兴高采烈地向大荔法院民二庭法官表达他的感激之情。 送锦旗） 2025年3月，大荔法院民二庭受理了一起合同无效的装饰装修合同纠纷案件。2014年老李通过熟人 ...

Core Viewpoint - The court ruled that the sales contract between Yu Tao and Blue Sky Company was invalid due to the vehicle being misrepresented and not suitable for personal use, violating public order regulations in Beijing [2][3]. Group 1: Case Background - Yu Tao purchased a "light non-cargo special operation vehicle" for 332,000 yuan from Blue Sky Company, despite not having a Beijing car purchase permit [1]. - After the purchase, Yu Tao discovered issues with the vehicle, including a malfunctioning air conditioning system and a discrepancy in the seating capacity, which was limited to 2 people instead of the advertised 7 [1]. - Yu Tao filed a lawsuit against Blue Sky Company, claiming fraud and seeking a refund of the purchase price along with triple compensation [1]. Group 2: Court Proceedings - Blue Sky Company argued that they did not commit fraud, as the vehicle was clearly labeled as a "light non-cargo special operation vehicle" and that they had completed the transfer of ownership [2]. - The court determined that the contract was essentially a sales agreement for a vehicle not intended for its stated purpose, thus violating regulations on car purchase permits in Beijing [2]. - The court found that both parties shared responsibility for the invalid contract, leading to a decision to refund Yu Tao 312,000 yuan after deducting a depreciation fee of 20,000 yuan [3]. Group 3: Final Ruling - The court's ruling declared the sales contract invalid, and both parties accepted the decision without appeal, making the ruling effective [4].