Charging 35 yuan to wash and damage limited edition AJ sneakers results in a compensation ruling of 21,900 yuan. Is such a verdict reasonable?
The Xiaoshan District People's Court of Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province applied the small claims procedure for a final-instance trial of a service contract dispute caused by improper cleaning. The plaintiff bought a limited-edition AJ shoe for 36,500 yuan, but the shoe surface was damaged when sent to a shoe cleaning shop. The defendant, the shop owner, was ultimately ordered to compensate the plaintiff 60% of the shoe's purchase price, i.e., 21,900 yuan.
The incident originated in late July last year when Xiaowei purchased a limited-edition AJ1 OW Chicago White-Black-Red sneaker at a store in Hangzhou for 36,500 yuan. On October 2 of the same year, he sent the shoes to Daliu's shoe cleaning shop for cleaning. Three days later, when Xiaowei picked up the shoes, he was shocked to find both shoe surfaces damaged to varying degrees, with the right shoe's surface particularly "unrecognizable," as Daliu had replaced it with a non-original shoe surface.
Heartbroken, Xiaowei demanded compensation from Daliu based on the purchase price. However, the two parties had vastly different perceptions of the shoes' value. On February 24, Xiaowei filed a lawsuit against Daliu in court.
Xiaowei argued that Daliu's shoe cleaning shop had been registered since 2012, indicating long-term experience, and should have understood the value of sneakers in the industry. Moreover, Xiaowei had taken great care of the shoes in the three months since purchase, wearing them only a few times, so they were in relatively new condition.
Da Liu stated that although the receipt provided by Xiao Wei showed the purchase price of the shoes at the store was 36,500 yuan, the factory price of the sneakers was 1,880 yuan, and they were manufactured in 2010. The inflated price when Xiao Wei bought them was due to market speculation on sneakers. He had no objection to the fact that the sneakers were damaged, was willing to repair the shoe surface, compensate according to the factory price of 1,880 yuan, and provide an additional appropriate compensation of 1,000 yuan.
After trial, the court held that the value of the sneakers in question could not be determined solely based on the factory price; their actual value should include appreciation potential, which constituted the main part. After Da Liu washed and damaged the sneakers, he repaired them himself and replaced the original shoe surface with a non-original one, resulting in a near-total loss of value. Given the defendant's expertise and the agreement, it was determined that this loss was foreseeable. Considering factors such as the sneakers' depreciation rate, actual usage time, and residual value, and balancing the interests of both parties, the court set the plaintiff's loss at 60% of the purchase price, i.e., 21,900 yuan, and ordered Da Liu to pay this amount within a specified period.
Does the sneaker cleaning contract violate the principle of fairness?
The author believes that charging a shoe cleaning service fee of 35 yuan while requiring bearing a risk of over 30,000 yuan creates a significant imbalance between the service fee and the required duty of care, making it an unequal agreement that violates the principle of fairness in contracts.
Article 6 of the General Principles of Civil Law stipulates that civil subjects engaging in civil activities shall follow the principle of fairness and reasonably determine the rights and obligations of all parties.
Article 4 of the General Principles of Civil Law: Civil activities shall follow the principles of voluntariness, fairness, equivalent compensation, and good faith.
Is the court's determination of the shoes' value reasonable?
After trial, the court held that the value of the sneakers in question cannot be determined solely based on the factory price; their actual value should include appreciation potential, which constitutes the major part. After Daliu washed and damaged the sneakers, he repaired them himself and replaced the uppers with non-original ones, resulting in a near-total loss of value. Considering factors such as the sneakers' depreciation rate, actual usage time, and residual value, and balancing the interests of both parties, the court determined the plaintiff's loss as 3.65*60% of the purchase price, i.e., 21,900 yuan, and ordered Daliu to pay this amount within a specified period.
In my view, the court's determination of the sneakers' appreciation potential is highly problematic. First, appreciation typically applies to scarce assets, such as real estate, works of famous artists, historical artifacts, etc. While the recent "sneaker speculation" phenomenon has indeed led to widespread appreciation of sneakers, the market-recognized appreciation potential of brand-new collectible sneakers and worn sneakers is certainly not the same.
Second, equating appreciation potential with the purchase price on the receipt minus the factory price involves a significant logical error.
Market price cannot simply be equated with the receipt price; appreciation potential should be defined as market price minus factory price, not receipt price minus factory price.
