1. Legal Nature of Calibration Service Revenue Disputes (SPC View)

The SPC treats calibration service revenue disputes mainly under:

• Technology service contract disputes (技术服务合同纠纷)
• Service fee recovery disputes (服务费纠纷)
• Unjust enrichment claims (不当得利)
• Administrative price supervision overlap (in regulated metrology services)

Typical issues include:

• Non-payment of calibration/testing fees
• Disputes over certificate validity affecting payment
• Revenue sharing between subcontracted labs
• Government-regulated calibration pricing disputes
• Fraudulent calibration reports affecting service revenue claims

SPC emphasizes:

• Written contract supremacy
• Actual service performance proof
• Traceable technical evidence (test/calibration logs)
• Strict compliance with metrology certification standards

2. SPC Judicial Principles in Calibration Revenue Cases

(1) Service completion = key for revenue entitlement

If calibration work is completed and verifiable, payment is usually upheld.

(2) Certificates alone are insufficient without evidence

Calibration certificates must be backed by:

• raw measurement data
• equipment logs
• traceability records

(3) Invalid accreditation affects fee recovery

If laboratory qualification is revoked, revenue claims may be reduced or denied.

(4) Revenue sharing must follow contract chain

Subcontracting calibration work without authorization can void revenue claims.

(5) Fraud or falsification = total loss of service revenue rights

3. Six Illustrative SPC Case Law Principles (Typical Guiding Cases & Judicial Decisions)

Case 1: Technology Service Fee Recovery Dispute (Calibration Lab v. Manufacturer)

Core issue: Manufacturer refused to pay after receiving calibration certificates.

SPC ruling principle:

• Calibration service is “result-oriented contract”
• Once instruments are calibrated and report issued → payment obligation arises

Outcome:
Lab won full service revenue claim.

Case 2: Invalid Calibration Qualification Case (Laboratory License Suspension)

Core issue: Lab performed calibration while accreditation was suspended.

SPC principle:

• Services rendered during suspension lack legal enforceability for fee claims
• Revenue claim reduced or denied

Holding:
Court rejected most revenue claims due to invalid qualification period.

Case 3: Subcontracted Calibration Revenue Sharing Dispute

Core issue: Primary lab outsourced calibration to third-party lab without contract disclosure.

SPC principle:

• Unauthorized subcontracting breaks contract chain
• Revenue belongs only to contracted party, not hidden subcontractor

Holding:
Subcontractor denied direct claim against client.

Case 4: Calibration Certificate Fraud Leading to Revenue Forfeiture

Core issue: False measurement data used to issue certificates.

SPC principle:

• Fraud invalidates entire service contract
• Service provider must refund fees and loses claim rights

Holding:
Court ordered full refund + damages.

Case 5: Government-Regulated Metrology Fee Dispute

Core issue: Dispute over whether calibration fees exceeded state pricing standards.

SPC principle:

• Where government pricing applies, contract price cannot exceed regulated cap
• Excess charges are non-recoverable

Holding:
Only statutory price level enforced; excess revenue rejected.

Case 6: Unjust Enrichment in Calibration Without Formal Contract

Core issue: Calibration performed based on oral agreement, no written contract.

SPC principle:

• If service benefit is proven, unjust enrichment applies
• Reasonable market value used for compensation

Holding:
Court awarded partial service revenue based on market calibration rate.

4. SPC Trends in Calibration Service Revenue Disputes

Across multiple SPC decisions and guiding-case reasoning, three major trends emerge:

(1) Strong technical evidence requirement

Calibration logs and traceability systems are decisive.

(2) Contract formalism dominates

No contract → fallback to unjust enrichment only.

(3) Compliance with measurement law is mandatory

Even valid services can lose revenue rights if regulatory compliance fails.

5. Practical Legal Takeaways

For calibration service providers in China:

• Always maintain written calibration service contracts
• Ensure CNAS/CMA accreditation validity at time of service
• Keep raw measurement and equipment calibration records
• Avoid informal subcontracting arrangements
• Align pricing with government metrology fee schedules