The legitimacy considerations "after" Yixie sales contract change, I believe that there are two points of view is debatable.
The first point: "as required in accordance with the SFDA (State Food and Drug Administration City [2003] No. 281), the hospital allegedly never purchased Class III medical devices electronic gastroscope" Medical Device Distribution Enterprise License ventures. "
The legal basis for this view: the State Food and Drug Administration City [2003] 281 document is no longer applicable. Should be applied in the operation and management of the medical devices Medical Device Distribution Enterprise License Management Measures to expand the business scope "or" beyond the scope ".
"Medical institutions approved the purchase of a license to operate range of medical equipment issues" (State Food and Drug Administration City [2003] No. 281), the so-called "beyond the scope of business" that is, beyond the "Medical Device Distribution Enterprise License" as specified in the operating range of operating equipment, as long as the business of the business scope of the "Medical Device Distribution Enterprise License NES varieties can be defined as beyond the scope of business. "Beyond the scope" reference appeared in 2003, documents the approval of the National Bureau of Jiangsu Province, as well as several other approval documents, the author summarized, these approved are in June 2004, they only normative documents .
"Medical equipment business enterprise license management approach" (Board Order No. 15) considered by the on SFDA Bureau Services will be on June 25, 2004, effective as of August 9, 2004, belongs to the departmental rules. Measures "operating companies are not operating according to the license specified in the operating range of medical devices", after the implementation of the Measures, the upper law is superior to the next level law, the new law is better than the old law principles, SFDA 2003 approved the license business scope medical devices in medical institutions purchase approved normative documents of the Jiangsu Provincial Bureau "beyond the scope" is no longer applicable, shall apply to "approach" of the operating range the requirement that the companies are not medical devices into the scope of business operating license set out to expand the business scope "and" beyond the scope ".
The second point: E Company and Company A hospital signed two contracts, operating endoscopic equipment in the operating range A company "Medical Device Distribution Enterprise License permits, it is based on the" People's Republic provisions of Article 52 of the Contract Act, the identified Company A signed procurement contracts with hospitals invalid, draw valid conclusions Company E contract. "
I believe that the contract is null and void in law is void contract, that do not have legal binding and are not subject to legal protection. "Contract Law" Article 56 provides: "invalid contract or revocation of the contract from the beginning is not legally binding. Part of a contract is invalid, does not affect the validity of the other parts, other parts remain valid. "But the law is void contract, does not mean that the contract signed both failure if the two sides are in strict accordance with the contract to perform, Although the contract is legally invalid, but the contract has been true fulfillment, it is also possible as evidence finalized. A Company signed the contract with the hospital in the law is void contract, not The resulting E Company signed contract is a valid contract with the hospital. Either-or the relationship does not exist between them.
The contrary, according to the text of the merits, we learned that in the pre-hospital survey did not put forward a signed contract with Company E, but "in the course of the investigation, the hospital provides a signed and Company E the electronic gastroscope purchased the above model procurement contracts "in the survey conducted for a period of time (probably between the days), the hospital was put forward signed a contract with Company E, Company A transferred to Company E. This is very confusing, why hospitals in the initial stages of investigation does not provide this situation, but in the interim investigation raised? Here is not the hospitals and suppliers should be considered in connection E Company contract situation in order to circumvent the corresponding legal responsibility, of course, which requires evidence to illustrate. If this is the case, in accordance with the provisions of the Article 52 of the Contract Law "Article 52 of the following circumstances, the contract null and void: ... (c) the legitimate acts conceal illegitimate purposes," then E hospital contract is void contract.
So, I believe that the case should be carefully investigated whether an offense had been committed by the evidence, and in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Measures for the Administration of the Medical Device Distribution Enterprise License qualitative and processing.