Article 756
If the financial lease contract is terminated due to accidental damage or loss after the leased object is delivered to the lessee for reasons not attributable to the parties, the lessor may request the lessee to compensate according to the depreciation of the leased object.
I. Purpose of this Article
This article is about the legal consequences of the termination of the financial lease contract due to accidental damage or loss of the leased object.
II. Evolution of the Provisions
Article 15 of the 2014 Interpretation of Financial Lease Contracts stipulates that: "If a financial lease contract is terminated due to accidental damage or loss of the leased object after it is delivered to the lessee, such as accidental damage or loss that is not attributable to the parties, and the lessor requests the lessee to compensate the lessee according to the depreciation of the leased property, the people's court shall support it." This article follows the provisions of the above-mentioned judicial interpretation, and has not been changed except for a few wording modifications.
3. Interpretation of Provisions
This article stipulates that the lessee shall compensate for the accidental damage or loss of the leased property.
During the existence of the financial lease contract, if the financial lease contract is terminated due to accidental damage, loss or other reasons not attributable to the parties after the leased object is delivered to the lessee, the owner of the leased object shall bear the damage in accordance with the rules on the burden of risk of accidental loss of the subject matter. Due to the particularity of the financial lease contract, especially the lessee has possessed, used and benefited from the leased object before the accidental damage or loss of the leased object, therefore, the consequences of the risk of accidental loss of the leased object shall be appropriately shared, and in accordance with the provisions of this article, the lessor may require the lessee to compensate according to the depreciation of the leased object, and the lessee shall compensate within this scope. The specific method is that, according to the depreciation of the subject matter at the time of the occurrence of the unexpected risk, for example, the depreciation at that time is 50%, the lessee's compensation for the lessor's loss should be about 50%.
4. Cases
China Pacific Property & Casualty Insurance Co., Ltd. Suzhou Branch v. Suzhou Chirui Precision Machinery Co., Ltd., a dispute over the insurer's subrogation claim
Facts: On March 4, 2013, Chirui Machinery Co., Ltd. (the lessee and Party B) signed a financial lease contract with Suzhou Fuyi Financial Leasing Co., Ltd. (the lessor and Party A). On November 5, 2013, the Industrial Park Brigade of the Suzhou Public Security Fire Detachment issued a "Fire Accident Identification Certificate". In the event of an insured accident for the insured equipment insured by the plaintiff CPIC Suzhou Branch, the plaintiff has settled the claim and obtained the right of subrogation according to the contract, which is confirmed by corresponding evidence. However, it claimed that Chirui Machinery Company was in breach of contract in the performance of the financial lease contract, so it should be liable for compensation of RMB 360525 for the loss of the equipment involved in the case paid by CPIC Suzhou Branch, and CPIC Suzhou Branch did not submit evidence to prove that the occurrence of the insured accident in this case was caused by Chirui Machinery Company's failure to perform in accordance with the financial lease contract. CPIC Suzhou Branch claimed that according to Article 8 of the financial lease contract, the lessee should be liable for damages for any damage or loss of the leased property for any reason. However, after investigation, the clause only clarifies that in the case of damage or damage that cannot be repaired or permanently loses its use value, the payment obligation of Chirui Machinery Company is not reduced or exempted, and it is not clearly stipulated that Chirui Machinery Company shall bear the corresponding liability for damages. Although the insured, Suzhou Yifu Financial Leasing Co., Ltd., had issued a letter of transfer of rights and interests, stating that the third party, namely Chirui Machinery Company in this case, should be responsible for compensating for the losses, this statement was a unilateral statement and was not confirmed by Chirui Machinery Company. In summary, the court of first instance held that CPIC Suzhou Branch's claim that Chirui Machinery Company should compensate CPIC Suzhou Branch for the loss of the equipment involved in the case was 360525 yuan, lacked factual basis and was not supported by the court.
5. Analysis
Whether it is the stipulation in Article 8 of the financial lease contract involved in this case that the lessee shall still bear the obligation to pay in the event of damage or loss of the leased property, or the provision in Article 751 of the Civil Code that the risk of damage or loss of the leased property shall be borne by the lessee, they all clarify the risk burden rule in the case of damage or loss of the leased property, and it cannot be directly presumed that if the leased property is damaged or lost, the lessee shall of course be in breach of contract and should bear the liability for breach of contract, but should still be judged according to the cause of the damage or loss of the leased property. If the leased property is accidentally damaged or lost, that is, due to reasons not attributable to the lessee, the lessee shall not be liable for the losses incurred by the lessor, and its obligation to pay shall only be based on the provisions of the law or the contract.