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].