China News Service, January 23. According to the WeChat public account of the Supreme People's Court website, in order to further play the role of judicial services in promoting comprehensive revitalization of rural areas and building an agricultural power, help improve the level of rural governance, accelerate the pace of agricultural and rural modernization, the Supreme People's Court The court selected nine cases from typical cases involving farmers reported by courts across the country and announced them to the public.
The case released this time has the following characteristics.
The first is to highlight the concepts and requirements for protecting cultivated land.
It is my country's basic national policy to cherish and rationally utilize every inch of land and effectively protect cultivated land.
The protection of cultivated land is related to food security, ecological security and social stability. Adhering to the red line of cultivated land protection is not only the responsibility of governments at all levels, but also the unshirkable responsibility of judicial organs.
Case 1: In the case of the lease contract dispute between Xu and Wu, the People's Court declared the land lease contract for non-agricultural purposes invalid according to law, and sent judicial suggestions to the relevant departments, prompting the relevant departments and the local government to take effective measures to carry out centralized rectification. The activity restored more than 100 acres of farmland that had been “de-agriculturalized” to agricultural use, fully demonstrating the People’s Court’s responsibility to protect farmland in accordance with the law.
The second is to focus on deepening the reform of "separation of three powers" in rural contracted land.
During the trial of the case, the people's court strictly followed the requirements of "implementing collective ownership, stabilizing farmers' contracting rights, and releasing land management rights", correctly identified facts, accurately applied laws, and ensured and promoted the smooth progress of the reform of "separation of three rights" in contracted land.
Case 2: A dispute over the confirmation of land contract management rights between a village committee and Yu XX. The People's Court found that Zhu XX's act of contracting out land in the name of the village committee without democratic negotiation procedures was invalid according to the law; Case 3: Zhou XX and a village committee In the case of land contract management rights disputes, the People's Court legally protected the rights of the contractor who actually invested the land to receive compensation for young crops after the land was expropriated.
These two cases have good demonstration and leading significance for regulating rural land contracting and protecting the enthusiasm and initiative of village collectives, contracting farmers, land management rights holders and other parties to participate in the "separation of three rights" reform.
The third is to highlight services and ensure the pilot work of rural collective commercial construction land entering the market.
The pilot program of rural collective commercial construction land entering the market is a major decision made by the Party Central Committee and the State Council. It is a major reform of my country's land system. It is related to the vital interests of farmers and involves major adjustments to the interests of all parties.
Case 4: The dispute between Jiang Moumou and the first resident group of a community infringing the rights and interests of members of a collective economic organization was a dispute arising from the distribution of income from the entry of rural collective commercial construction land into the market. The people's court revoked the infringement of the rights and interests of farmers made by the village collective in accordance with the law. The income distribution plan effectively safeguards the legitimate rights and interests of farmers and effectively guarantees the steady and prudent advancement of the pilot market entry work.
The fourth is to highlight the protection and promotion of modern agricultural development.
Innovating production methods and transaction models and developing new and smart agriculture are inevitable requirements for agricultural modernization.
The people's courts give full play to their judicial functions and ensure and promote the development of modern agriculture in accordance with the law.
Case 5: In a dispute over a partnership agreement between an agricultural investment company and a certain breeding cooperative, the People's Court confirmed the validity of the new agricultural product production and operation contract of "company + cooperative + farmer" in accordance with the law, and did not recognize the validity of improper termination of the contract, which effectively protected the agricultural industry. The normal development of production equally protects the legitimate rights and interests of all parties.
Case 6 The sales contract dispute between Du Moumou and Quan Moumou was a case caused by the new agricultural product trading model of "Buying Qingshan". The People's Court protected the honest and observant parties in accordance with the law and effectively maintained the trading order of the agricultural product market.
Case 7: The dispute over property damage compensation between Lu and Fan was a case caused by drone spraying of pesticides. The People’s Court firmly grasped the characteristics of the infringement of drone spraying of pesticides and promptly fixed the relevant information reported by the parties to the competent authorities. Evidence, accurate identification of case facts and causal relationships, and legal judgment of the infringing party to compensate the injured party for losses are of great positive significance in guiding farmers to enhance their legal awareness, standardize the use of drone technology, and promote the healthy development of smart agriculture in our country.
The fifth is to highlight the maintenance of agricultural input market order.
The sale of counterfeit pesticides, fertilizers and other agricultural products seriously endangers agricultural production and harms the rights and interests of farmers. Resolute and effective measures must be taken in accordance with the law to prevent and curb such behaviors that harm farmers.
Case 8: In the product liability dispute between Wang Moumou and an agricultural materials company, the People's Court, on the basis of ascertaining the facts, ordered the seller who was unable to provide evidence of the source of pesticides and product qualifications to compensate Wang Moumou for his losses and regulate the development of the agricultural materials market. It fully reflects the people's court's clear stance of safeguarding farmers' legitimate rights and interests and safeguarding agricultural production.
Sixth, we will focus on strengthening the protection of intellectual property rights in the seed industry.
"Good seeds will lead to abundant grain, and food security will lead to people's security."
Seeds are the "chips" of agriculture and the core competitiveness of agricultural development. Strengthening the protection of intellectual property rights in the seed industry plays an extremely critical role in promoting national food security and high-quality agricultural development.
The People's Court conscientiously implements the "Seed Law of the People's Republic of China" and effectively strengthens judicial protection of intellectual property rights in the seed industry.
Case 9: A dispute between a potato industry group company and Tang Mou over infringement of new plant variety rights. The People's Court ordered the person who sold seeds without the permission of the variety right holder to stop the infringement and bear civil liability for compensation, thus safeguarding the intellectual property rights of the variety right holder. , is of great significance to standardizing the order of the seed market and promoting innovation in the seed industry.
Case 1: Judicial recommendations to promote the "non-agriculturalization" of cultivated land - the case of the lease contract dispute between Xu XX and Wu XX
1. Basic facts of the case
Wu Moumou is a villager of a certain village.
In April 2020, Wu Moumou and Xu Moumou signed a "Site Lease Contract", agreeing to backfill an 8-acre empty space located in a factory in the village and lease it to Xu Moumou for stacking engineering equipment, with a lease term of 5 years.
After the contract was signed, Xu Moumou paid Wu Moumou more than 200,000 yuan in rent for the first two years, and actually piled construction engineering equipment on 4 acres of the 8 acres of land rented.
In May 2021, the land management department notified Wu that the 4 acres of land where debris was piled was cultivated land. He was suspected of illegally occupying cultivated land, and ordered him to make immediate corrections and restore the land to its original state.
Wu Moumou then asked Xu Moumou to move the piled items away from the site involved in the case.
In July 2021, Xu Moumou sued the court after completely vacating the leased site, requesting that Wu Moumou return the rent of 82,345.21 yuan from July 16, 2021 to April 30, 2022, and compensate him for relocation losses of 36,800 yuan. Yuan.
2. Referee results
The trial court held that because the "Site Lease Contract" signed by Xu and Wu stipulated that the land leased to Xu for stacking engineering equipment contained part of cultivated land, it violated the provisions of the "Land Management Law of the People's Republic of China" on agricultural use. In accordance with the relevant provisions of land protection, the "Site Lease Contract" signed by both parties is invalid.
On the basis of comprehensive consideration of the degree of fault of both parties, the court ordered Wu to refund the rent for the remaining lease period to Xu and compensate Xu for the corresponding relocation losses.
During the trial of this case, the trial court investigated and found that there were many similar illegal occupations of farmland in its jurisdiction, and the land lease contract disputes caused by this were not isolated cases.
Therefore, we actively sent judicial suggestions to land management and other departments, prompting land management departments and local streets to carry out joint law enforcement, and concentrated on rectifying such problems, so that the "non-agriculturalization" problem of more than 100 acres of land was effectively rectified.
3. Typical meaning
It is my country's basic national policy to cherish and rationally utilize land and effectively protect cultivated land.
The protection of cultivated land is related to food security, ecological security and social stability. Adhering to the red line of cultivated land protection is not only the responsibility of governments at all levels, but also the unshirkable task of judicial organs.
In this case, the People's Court not only invalidated the lease contract for illegal occupation of cultivated land, indicating the People's Court's "zero tolerance" attitude and stance towards illegal occupation of cultivated land, but also insisted on active justice, actively extended its judicial functions, and based on the information learned during the handling of the case. Regarding the illegal occupation of cultivated land, we actively sent judicial suggestions to relevant departments, which effectively promoted the timely rectification of the "non-agriculturalization" problem of more than 100 acres of local cultivated land, and achieved a good social effect of "handling one case and governing one area".
Case 2: The land contract issued by village cadres in the name of the village committee without democratic negotiation procedures is invalid - a dispute between a village committee and Yu over the confirmation of land contract management rights
1. Basic facts of the case
On August 3, 2014, while Zhu Moumou was serving as the Party branch secretary of a certain village, he signed a "Land Use Rights Transfer Contract" with Yu Moumou, a villager from another village, in the name of a certain village committee, agreeing to transfer 50 acres of land in a certain village to Yu Moumou. For a certain operation, the circulation period is from October 20, 2014 to October 20, 2025.
The transfer fee is 400 yuan per mu per year.
The two parties also agreed that if the village committee takes back the land early, it will compensate someone at the rate of 600 yuan per mu per year for the remaining planting years.
Afterwards, both parties actually performed the contract, and Yu paid all the land contract fees to Zhu.
After Zhu Moumou left office, the village committee filed a lawsuit with the People's Court on the grounds that Zhu Moumou secretly contracted the village collective land to Yu Moumou, a villager from another village without democratically agreed procedures, and infringed upon the legitimate rights and interests of the village collective, requesting that Zhu Moumou be confirmed. The "Land Use Rights Transfer Contract" signed between a certain person and Yu XX is invalid, and he requested that Yu XX be ordered to return the 50 acres of village collective land he occupies.
2. Referee results
The trial court held that Yu XX was not a member of the collective economic organization of the village, and Zhu XX contracted village collective land to Yu XX in the name of the villagers committee without going through the statutory democratic negotiation procedures, nor reported it to the local government for approval, which violated the "China According to the relevant provisions of the Rural Land Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, the "Land Use Rights Transfer Contract" signed by Zhu Moumou and Yu Moumou in the name of a certain village committee is invalid.
The court ruled that Yu should return 50 acres of the land he occupied to a certain village committee, and in accordance with the principle of fairness, ordered a certain village committee to return to Yu a contract fee of 400 yuan per mu per year for the remaining 4 years of the contracted land operation period. 80,000 yuan and interest during the period of occupied funds.
3. Typical meaning
The land involved in this case is collectively owned by farmers operated and managed by the village committee.
According to the relevant provisions of the "Land Management Law of the People's Republic of China" and the "Rural Land Contract Law of the People's Republic of China", if the rural land involved in the case is contracted to units or individuals other than the collective economic organization, it must be approved by the villagers meeting of the members of the collective economic organization in advance. The approval of more than two-thirds of the members or more than two-thirds of the village representatives shall be submitted to the township (town) people's government for approval.
In this case, the People's Court legally determined that the contract of leasing village collective land to individuals other than members of the village collective economic organization without statutory democratic negotiation procedures was invalid. In order to regulate the behavior of village collectives in leasing land to external parties and effectively safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of village collectives and their members, Maintaining harmony and stability in rural society is of great significance.
Case 3 Compensation for young crops after land expropriation should be obtained by the actual investor - case of land contract management rights dispute between Zhou Moumou and a certain village committee
1. Basic facts of the case
In June 2001, Zhou Moumou signed a "Land Contract Agreement" with a certain village committee, stipulating that Zhou Moumou contracted 100 acres of village collective land for planting timber and operating agricultural and sideline products, and the contract period was thirty years.
After Zhou Moumou contracted, he invested money to dig wells, build electricity, build houses, plant trees and field crops, and paid the contract fees on time until 2017.
In 2017, according to local planning and construction needs, the land contracted by Zhou required afforestation.
At the beginning of 2018, the above-mentioned land was classified into the seedling and landscape mixed-use forest construction area, and the local government paid compensation according to certain standards.
Compensation costs include land income and one-time compensation for ground attachments.
After receiving the land income payment and one-time young crop compensation fee involved in the case, the village committee has not paid the relevant young crop compensation fee to Zhou Moumou.
Zhou Moumou sued the court, requesting the village committee to pay him land income and young crop compensation totaling 534,600 yuan.
2. Referee results
The trial court held that the "Land Contract Agreement" signed by Zhou and a certain village committee was legal and valid. Zhou performed the contract as agreed, paid the contract fees on time, and planted crops, and there was no breach of contract.
According to the policy, the land income from the land requisition involved in the case belongs to the original contractor, and the compensation fee of 150,000 yuan for young crops due to the land requisition should belong to the actual investor Zhou Moumou according to law.
Because Zhou Moumou was not the original contractor of the land involved in the case, he was not entitled to receive land income payments.
The court ruled that a certain village committee should return 150,000 yuan in compensation to Zhou Moumou.
3. Typical meaning
This case is a dispute over the ownership of compensation fees for young crops arising from land acquisition.
According to relevant laws and policies, when rural land is expropriated, compensation for young crops shall belong to the contractors who actually use the land for production and operation, including contractors who are members of the collective economic organization, as well as others other than members of the collective economic organization. Persons who contract to manage village collective land.
The judgment in this case legally ordered a village committee to return 150,000 yuan in compensation for Zhou's young crops. It not only promptly and effectively safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of the contractor, but also had typical demonstration significance in actively preventing and properly resolving similar disputes, and was conducive to the protection of Local rural planning and construction work is progressing smoothly.
Case 4 The income distribution plan that infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests of members of collective economic organizations should be revoked in accordance with the law - the case of Jiang Moumou and the first resident group of a community infringing the rights and interests of members of collective economic organizations
1. Basic facts of the case
A certain place is a pilot area for implementing the reform of bringing rural collective commercial construction land into the market.
A piece of rural collective commercial construction land owned by the first resident group of a local community was included in the scope of the pilot project.
The land was finally put on the market through transfer. The land use is industrial land, the transfer period is 40 years, and the market price is 120,700 yuan/mu (including compensation for land transfer, compensation for young crops and ground attachments 66,000 yuan/mu) , the land development cost and collective income part are 54,700 yuan/mu), the aerial surveying and mapping area is 136.82 acres, and the market income is 16.5142 million yuan.
In August 2020, the first resident group of a community formulated a distribution plan for the compensation fees for young crops and ground attachments and land transfer compensation in the income from entering the market as follows: The expenses that can be included in the distribution are compensation fees for young crops and ground attachments and land transfer compensation. The fee (66,000 yuan/mu) is calculated on a household basis and based on the actual contracted land area measured on-site for each household; the contracted land area measured on-site for all contracting farmers totals 198.97 acres, and the funds to be allocated are 13.132 million yuan.
The plaintiff Jiang Moumou and his parents are both members of the collective economic organization of the first residents group of a certain community, but they do not have contracted land in the first residents group of a certain community.
The plaintiff Jiang Moumou believed that the income distribution plan formulated by the first resident group of a certain community seriously infringed on his legitimate rights and interests, so he filed a lawsuit and requested the court to revoke the income distribution plan made by the first resident group of a certain community in August 2020.
2. Referee results
The trial court held that Paragraph 2 of Article 63 of the Property Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that if a decision made by a collective economic organization, village committee or its leader infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests of collective members, the infringed collective members may request the People's Court to Undo.
In this case, the distribution plan formulated by the first resident group of a certain community is based on the on-site measured land area of 198.97 acres of all contracting farmers, and allocates compensation fees for young crops and ground attachments to the contracting farmers according to the market transaction price standard of 66,000 yuan/mu. The total land transfer compensation fee is 13.132 million yuan. According to the aerial photography area of 136.82 acres, the actual compensation for young crops and ground attachments and land transfer compensation is 9.0301 million yuan (66,000 yuan/mu × 136.82 acres) ).
According to the distribution plan formulated by the first resident group of a certain community, compensation fees for young crops and ground attachments, and land transfer compensation fees are allocated, which takes up a large amount of land development costs, collective income portion and other market income that are jointly owned by all members of the collective economic organization. It is inevitable that As a result, a small number of members of collective economic organizations, including Jiang Moumou, who have no contracted land or have a small contracted land area, can reduce the income they can share when separately allocating collective income, which directly harms the small number of members of collective economic organizations, including Jiang Moumou, who do not have contracted land. Or the legitimate rights and interests of members of collective economic organizations with small contracted land areas, so this distribution plan should not be used as the basis for income distribution.
The court ruled in accordance with the law to cancel the income distribution plan made by the first resident group of a certain community.
3. Typical meaning
The pilot reform of rural collective commercial construction land entering the market is a major decision made by the Party Central Committee and the State Council to deepen the reform of the rural land system. The distribution of income from entering the market is a key endpoint of the pilot reform of rural collective commercial construction land and is directly related to whether farmers can be fair. , Fairly enjoy the dividends of rural land system reform.
Although rural collective economic organizations enjoy the right to distribute collective income on their own, the resolutions formed to distribute collective income must comply with laws and national policies and must not infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of members of collective economic organizations.
In this case, the People's Court legally revoked the income distribution plan that had infringed upon the legitimate rights and interests of members of collective economic organizations even though it was made through democratic negotiation procedures, and promptly and effectively safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of a small number of members of collective economic organizations that had no contracted land and less contracted land. .
The judgment of this case has important guiding significance for regulating rural collective economic organizations' exercise of autonomy in accordance with the law and the distribution of collective income. It is also conducive to the smooth advancement of the pilot reform of rural collective commercial construction land entering the market. It fully reflects the people's court's contribution to deepening the reform of the rural land system. The functional role of judicial services and safeguards.
Case 5 If a partner improperly terminates an agricultural production cooperation agreement, the People's Court will not support it - a dispute over a partnership agreement between an agricultural investment company and a certain breeding cooperative
1. Basic facts of the case
In December 2016, an agricultural investment company and a certain breeding cooperative reached a "Yam Cultivation Cooperation Agreement for a Certain Agricultural Industrial Belt Construction Project", agreeing to use a joint-stock cooperative model to distribute profits and bear corresponding operating risks according to the proportion of inputs. About 100 acres of yam will be planted along the line, and the cooperation period is 2 years until the completion of yam planting, production and sales in 2018.
After the two parties cooperated in farming and sales for the first year, in August 2018, the Agricultural Investment Company claimed that neither party had invested as stipulated in the contract, neither had remitted the yam sales money to the joint management account, and the yam harvest yield had not reached the guaranteed limit stipulated in the contract. A "Letter to Terminate the Cooperation Agreement" was sent to the cooperative on the grounds of production volume, etc.
After receiving the letter, the cooperative did not agree to terminate the cooperation and required the agricultural investment company to promptly fulfill its investment obligations in 2018 to cover farmers' wages and the investment expenses advanced by the cooperative. It also required the agricultural investment company to actively cooperate to promptly return the yams planted in 2018. Excavating and selling.
Later, because the agricultural investment company did not invest and the cooperative had no funds, the yams planted could not be harvested and sold.
In addition, regarding the production reduction in 2017, the local agricultural department issued a statement on the reduction in production and revenue due to frequent rainfall during the peak growth period of yam.
In the end, the two parties failed to reach an agreement on cooperation matters. The agricultural investment company sued and requested a judgment to confirm that the contract had been terminated. The cooperative should return the investment income in 2017 and return the machinery and equipment.
The cooperative counterclaimed and requested that the agricultural investment company make up for the investment money advanced by the cooperative in 2018.
2. Referee results
The trial court held that after signing the "Yam Planting Cooperation Agreement for an Agricultural Industrial Belt Construction Project", both parties should actively perform it in accordance with the principle of good faith to ultimately achieve the purpose of the contract.
Especially when the cooperative has invested heavily in 2018 and only has the final harvest left, both parties should negotiate and communicate effectively to reduce cooperation losses as much as possible, instead of allowing the mature yams to completely lose their economic value due to not being harvested in time and allowing losses. expand further.
In this case, the letter sent by the Agricultural Investment Company in August 2018 did not meet the statutory or mutually agreed termination circumstances.
Failure to invest as agreed and fail to transfer the sales proceeds into the joint account are behaviors of both parties. They should be regarded as changes to the contract by actual actions of both parties, and cannot be a reason for the agricultural investment company to terminate the contract.
If an agricultural investment company does not want to continue cooperation, it should be reported promptly so that the cooperative can consider whether to continue farming and stop losses in a timely manner.
The agricultural investment company did not promptly raise objections to the cooperative's continued promotion of land transfer and yam planting. It only sent a letter informing the cooperative to terminate the cooperation after the cooperative continued to invest heavily.
The agricultural investment company's behavior violated the spirit of the contract, and its appeal should not be supported.
The court ruled that all the claims of the agricultural input companies were rejected and supported the cooperative’s request for the agricultural investment companies to make up the investment.
3. Typical meaning
With the large-scale development of agricultural production, the production model of "company + cooperative + farmer" has become more common. This model is conducive to improving agricultural production efficiency and promoting farmers to increase their income and become rich.
However, when conflicts and disputes occur, cooperatives and farmers are often in a weak position and require judicial attention and protection.
The judgment in this case made a negative evaluation of the agricultural investment company's inappropriate letter to terminate the contract, and did not support its request for return of investment income. It protected the legitimate rights and interests of the cooperative and farmers in accordance with the law, and effectively prevented further losses in agricultural production cooperation. The expansion fully reflects the judiciary's evaluation and guidance functions for agricultural production that should uphold conservation and avoid waste, and its service and guarantee functions for the development of agricultural industrialization.
Case 6 Confirming the validity of the "Buy Qingshan" contract in accordance with the law and maintaining the order of transactions in the agricultural product market - the sales contract dispute case between Du Moumou and Quan Moumou
1. Basic facts of the case
On November 30, 2021, Du Moumou wanted to purchase the radishes planted by Quan Moumou that were still in the growing period. After negotiation, the two parties reached an agreement to "buy Qingshan" and signed a "Vegetable Sales Contract", agreeing that Quan Moumou would plant them. 39.5 acres of white radish were sold to Du Moumou at RMB 9,200 per mu. Du Moumou paid a deposit of RMB 180,000 when signing the contract and settled the payment within the period of receiving the second car of radish; from the date of signing the contract, Quan Moumou had to Responsible for managing the white radish within the corresponding scope of the contract to ensure that the radish is not affected by pests and diseases; when Du harvests the white radish, if he discovers that Quan has not done a good job in preventing and controlling diseases and pests during the growth period of the white radish, he has the right to terminate the contract , and required Quan to compensate Du for double the loss; if Du found that the insect eyes or gray mold spots on the white radish exceeded 10% when harvesting the white radish, he had the right to terminate the contract and require Quan to return the unharvested area in the contract. Corresponding to the payment; Du Moumou must pull out the radish purchased from somewhere in Quanzhou before January 22, 2022. If he does not finish pulling out the carrots, it will be regarded as Du Moumou voluntarily giving up.
The radish involved in the case was planted between September 22, 2021 and September 24, 2021, and the growth period is usually about 3 months.
Since December 7, 2021, Quan Moumou repeatedly notified Du Moumou to accept radish, but Du Moumou refused.
Before January 11, 2022, Du Moumou recognized the radish involved in the case as "good radish" in a WeChat chat with Quan Moumou, saying that he did not receive the radish because the refrigerated truck transporting the radish could not enter the site where the radish was shipped due to road reasons. .
After January 15, 2022, Du Moumou claimed that gray mold spots were found in the radish involved in the case, and called Quan Moumou to terminate the contract involved in the case and requested a refund of the payment.
Later, the two parties filed a lawsuit in court. Du requested confirmation that the contract would be terminated on January 15, 2022, and Quan returned the deposit and advance payment of 182,000 yuan. Quan countersued and requested that Du pay the remaining balance.
2. Referee results
The trial court held that although the two parties involved in the case agreed on the relevant circumstances for the termination of the contract, the parties failed to reach an agreement on the definition of "gray mold spots" in the agreed termination circumstances, and the plaintiff Du Moumou failed to prove that there was any such thing as stipulated in the contract. "Gray mold spots" or other diseases and insect pests have not proven that both parties have unanimously agreed to terminate the contract involved in the case, so they requested the People's Court to confirm that the "Vegetable Sales Contract" involved in the case had been terminated on January 15, 2022. Quan Moumou The request for return of the deposit and advance payment of 182,000 yuan will not be supported.
According to the contract between the two parties, Quan Moumou has fulfilled his contractual obligation to deliver the radish, and Du Moumou's refusal to accept the radish involved in the case constitutes a breach of contract, and Du Moumou should bear the risk of damage or loss of the radish involved in the case.
The court ruled that Du Moumou should pay Quan Moumou's remaining carrot payment of 138,324 yuan and rejected Du Moumou's lawsuit.
3. Typical meaning
In recent years, a new agricultural product trading model called "Buy Qingshan" has gradually emerged, that is, farmers sell immature agricultural products on the land to buyers in advance, and farmers continue to perform their management and protection obligations, and then hand over the agricultural products for purchase when they are mature. square.
This trading model effectively solves the dilemma of purchasing and selling between growers and purchasers due to the short shelf life of agricultural products, further stimulates the market vitality of agricultural products trading, and is a good way to revitalize agricultural resources, increase farmers' income, and promote the reasonable flow of production factors. The development pattern of the new agricultural management system is of positive significance.
In practice, since the conclusion of this transaction model can be at any point in the crop growth cycle, the contract price does not change due to changes in crop output, nor is it adjusted with market price fluctuations. The sales contract entered into between farmers and purchasers is usually It is also not standardized enough. In the event of price fluctuations, severe production cuts, etc., disputes between buyers and sellers will easily arise.
The judgment in this case is of exemplary significance for handling the "Buy Qingshan" agricultural product trading model case, and has a positive effect on protecting the stability of the agricultural product trading market and safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of farmers.
At the same time, the People's Court adheres to active justice, actively extends its judicial functions, recommends the use of standardized model contract texts to farmers in the jurisdiction, fills loopholes and reduces risks in the "Buying Qingshan" trading model, standardizes the order of the agricultural product trading market in the jurisdiction, and ensures the healthy development of the agricultural product trading market in the jurisdiction. Played a very important role.
Case 7: Those who use drones to spray pesticides and cause damage to crops in adjacent plots should be held liable for compensation - Lu Moumou and Fan Moumou’s Property Damage Compensation Dispute Case
1. Basic facts of the case
In April 2021, agricultural farmer Fan Moumou used an unmanned plant protection aircraft to spray herbicides in the rice field on the north side of Lu Moumou's orange garden.
Due to flight altitude, wind direction and other reasons, the liquid drift occurred when the aircraft was spraying, causing damage to Lu's crops.
According to the appraisal opinions submitted by Lu Moumou to the industry authorities on the accident and losses, as well as the inquiry transcripts of investigators from a certain county’s Rural Agriculture Bureau, it can be determined that the damaged crops are about 5 acres of orange trees and 2 acres of interplanted cauliflower. Among them, 5 acres of orange trees include 4 acres of sweet tangerine trees and 1 acres of "Red Beauty". Fan caused Lu a direct economic loss of 9,600 yuan for citrus trees and 12,000 yuan for cauliflower, totaling 21,600 yuan.
Lu Moumou believed that Fan Moumou's improper operation caused his economic losses and he should bear the liability for compensation, so he filed a lawsuit in court.
2. Referee results
The trial court held that agricultural growers should understand the planting conditions of adjacent land and take necessary protective measures before using drones to spray pesticides.
At the same time, users of agricultural machinery must strictly abide by operating rules and fully consider weather, wind direction and other comprehensive factors.
Those who cause damage due to wrongful infringement of the civil rights and interests of others shall bear tort liability.
The existing evidence in this case can prove that Fan Moumou caused damage to Lu Moumou's crops due to his fault during the process of spraying herbicides through a drone, so he should bear the liability for compensation.
The court ruled that Fan Moumou should compensate Lu Moumou for property losses of 21,600 yuan.
3. Typical meaning
With the development of smart agriculture in my country, drone technology has begun to be used in farmland surveying and mapping, pesticide spraying, fertilization and sowing, reducing physical labor and farming costs for farmers and improving planting efficiency.
However, due to the irregular management and use of drones, many new types of agriculture-related infringement disputes have also arisen. The trials of relevant cases often have problems such as irregular evidence collection, difficulty in ascertaining case facts, unclear infringement subjects, and difficulty in determining causality. .
In this case, the People's Court determined the facts of the infringement based on the evidence regarding the subject of the infringement, causal relationship, loss, etc. that was promptly reported to the local competent authority by the parties when the infringement occurred, and ruled that the infringer should bear the liability for damages, which not only effectively safeguarded the The legitimate rights and interests of farmers who have been infringed will also help guide farmers to enhance their legal awareness and prevent and reduce such disputes from the source.
At the same time, it will also help promote the government to strengthen supervision in the field of drone spraying of pesticides, which is of great significance to improving the level of rural grassroots social governance and assisting the high-quality development of agriculture.
Case 8 Merchants selling counterfeit and shoddy pesticides should bear liability for damages according to law - Product liability dispute case between Wang Moumou and an agricultural supplies company
1. Basic facts of the case
In 2018, Wang Moumou planted (machine picked) 160 acres of cotton land in a certain village. On September 16, 23, and 26 of the same year, Wang Moumou purchased ethephon and "leaf cotton white" from an agricultural supplies company. Professional cotton ripening agent.
After Wang Moumou sprayed, the cotton leaves withered and the cotton bolls turned black and withered, resulting in a reduction of 10,080 kilograms of seed cotton in the 160 acres of cotton field planted in 2018.
Wang Moumou's complaint to an agricultural supplies company was unsuccessful, so he reported the case to the county's comprehensive agricultural law enforcement brigade and entrusted relevant appraisal agencies to appraise the cause of the cotton situation and the resulting losses.
It was determined that the 10,080 kilogram reduction in cotton production was indeed caused by phytotoxicity.
Wang Moumou sued the court, requiring an agricultural supplies company to compensate 86,608 yuan for losses caused by reduced cotton production.
2. Referee results
The trial court held that Article 39 of the "Product Quality Law of the People's Republic of China" stipulates: "Sellers shall not adulterate or adulterate products, shall not pass off fake products as genuine or inferior products, and may not pass off substandard products as qualified products." ".
In this case, the product sold by an agricultural supplies company was labeled as "leaf cotton white" produced by a biotechnology company from outside the country. However, the biotechnology company confirmed in a statement that its company had never produced any type of cotton-specific ripening agent. product.
An agricultural supplies company cannot provide the source of "Yeluo Cotton White", cannot provide marketing accounts, and fails to provide evidence that the "Yeluo Cotton White" it sells is a qualified product, and should be liable for compensation for Wang's losses.
Based on the judicial appraisal opinions and the cotton price standards obtained from relevant departments, the court ruled that an agricultural supplies company should compensate Wang Moumou for 68,324.2 yuan in lost cotton production.
3. Typical meaning
The sale of counterfeit pesticides, fertilizers and other agricultural products seriously endangers agricultural production and harms the rights and interests of farmers. Relevant production and sales units should bear liability for compensation in accordance with the law.
The judgment in this case ordered an agricultural input company that was unable to provide evidence of the source of the pesticide "leaf cotton white" and product qualifications to compensate grower Wang Moumou for the loss of cotton production, which effectively safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of agricultural producers and demonstrated the people's court's protection of agricultural production. position and responsibilities.
It has demonstration and guiding significance for preventing and curbing the production and sale of counterfeit agricultural inputs that harm farmers and standardizing the operating order of the agricultural input market.
Case 9: Seeds sold without the permission of the variety rights holder shall be liable for compensation according to law - a dispute between a potato industry group company and Tang over infringement of new plant variety rights
1. Basic facts of the case
On January 31, 2019, a potato industry group company's "XX No. 6" potato variety was granted new plant variety rights, with the variety right number being CNA****.9.
Tang sold potato seeds in the name of "XX No. 6" potato variety without any legal business procedures and without the permission of the variety rights holder. After discovering this, a potato industry group company reported it to the local public security bureau, and the public security bureau will The potato seeds sold by Tang were sealed and stored and sent to professional institutions for sampling testing. The test report showed that the sample was the same variety as "XX No. 6".
A potato industry group company sued the court on the grounds that Tang had infringed its new plant variety rights, requesting that Tang be held liable for the infringement.
2. Referee results
The trial court held that the potato seeds developed by a potato industry group company are new plant varieties protected by law, and are entitled to the disposal, income and other rights of variety rights in accordance with the law.
Tang sold the potato seeds involved in the case without the permission of the variety rights holder and made a profit, which infringed the new plant variety rights of a potato industry group company and caused losses to the potato industry group company, and should be compensated.
The court ruled that Tang should immediately stop selling infringing potato seeds and compensate a potato industry group company for economic losses of 60,000 yuan.
3. Typical meaning
Seeds are the "chips" of agriculture. Strengthening the protection of intellectual property rights in the seed industry is an important step in promoting the revitalization of the seed industry and agricultural modernization, and plays an extremely critical role in promoting national food security and high-quality agricultural development.
Tang sold potato seeds without the permission of the variety rights holder and infringed upon the new plant variety rights involved in the case of a potato industry group company. He should stop the infringement and bear civil liability for compensation according to law.
The judgment in this case has effectively safeguarded the intellectual property rights of the variety rights holders, provided rules and guidance for seed sellers to operate legally, and is of great significance to standardizing the order of the seed market and promoting innovation in the seed industry.