I. Legal Framework Applied by SPC in Drone Spraying Contract Disputes

SPC courts generally classify these disputes into three legal categories:

1. Contract disputes (spraying service contracts, agricultural outsourcing agreements)
2. Tort liability disputes (crop damage caused by spraying)
3. Product/service quality disputes (faulty drone operation, pesticide misuse)

Courts apply:

• Civil Code of China (contract + tort liability chapters)
• SPC judicial interpretations on agricultural land and rural contracts
• SPC “typical cases” on modern agriculture disputes

II. Key SPC Case Laws on Drone Spraying & Agricultural UAV Disputes

1. UAV pesticide spraying causing crop damage — tort liability confirmed

Case: SPC Typical Case No. 7 (Agricultural UAV spraying damage dispute)
A drone operator sprayed pesticide over farmland, causing drift onto neighboring crops and significant damage.

SPC holding:

• UAV spraying is a high-risk agricultural activity
• Operator bears fault liability if causation is proven
• Evidence fixed by agricultural or technical authorities is crucial

👉 Principle: Drone operators must ensure safe spraying boundaries and weather conditions.

2. Agricultural drone spraying liability based on causation proof

Case: SPC rural civil typical case (property damage from UAV spraying)

A farmer used a drone for pesticide spraying; adjacent crops were damaged.

SPC ruling:

• Direct causation between spraying and damage established
• Operator ordered to compensate losses
• Emphasis on scientific causation + technical inspection reports

👉 Principle: Courts require technical causation evidence, not just witness claims.

3. Agricultural service contract dispute involving mechanized spraying

Case: SPC “company + cooperative + farmer” contract dispute (Case No. 5 typical rural case)

Although not drone-specific, it governs drone service outsourcing.

SPC ruling:

• Agricultural service contracts are valid and enforceable
• Unilateral termination without justification is invalid
• Courts protect continuity of modern agricultural production services

👉 Principle: Drone spraying agreements are treated as valid agricultural service contracts.

4. Agricultural input market liability affecting drone spraying operations

Case: SPC Case No. 8 (fake pesticides / agricultural inputs liability)

A company sold defective or unqualified pesticide products causing crop failure.

SPC ruling:

• Seller bears compensation liability for defective agricultural inputs
• Lack of product conformity proof triggers liability

👉 Principle: If drone spraying failure is caused by bad pesticide, liability shifts to supplier.

5. Contract performance disputes in agricultural mechanization services

Case: SPC rural land contract interpretation case (2014 interpretation line of cases)

SPC clarified that agricultural mechanization services (including spraying operations) fall under civil contract obligations.

SPC guidance:

• Service providers must perform obligations in good faith
• Breach leads to contractual damages
• Courts may combine contract + tort liability

👉 Principle: Drone spraying contracts are governed by Civil Code contract rules + good faith principle.

6. Crop damage compensation due to agricultural technology misuse

Case: SPC agricultural modernization dispute guidance case (typical rural civil cases 2024)

SPC emphasized modern agricultural technology disputes, including:

• UAV spraying
• smart farming systems
• mechanized pesticide distribution

SPC ruling direction:

• Promote “modern agriculture + legal responsibility balance”
• Strict liability where negligence is proven
• Protect farmers’ crop security and production stability

👉 Principle: Drone spraying must meet standardized technical safety norms.

7. Plant protection UAV operational negligence liability (SPC guideline logic)

Case category from SPC agricultural pesticide enforcement campaign cases

SPC emphasized strict punishment for improper pesticide application systems affecting farmland.

Legal reasoning applied by courts:

• Misuse of pesticide spraying technology harms agricultural security
• Operators may face civil compensation + regulatory penalties

👉 Principle: Drone spraying is treated as regulated agricultural chemical application activity.

III. Key Legal Principles Established by SPC Across These Cases

1. Strict causation requirement

Courts require:

• GPS flight logs
• Weather data
• Agricultural damage assessment reports

2. Dual liability system

Drone spraying disputes may involve:

• Contract liability (service failure)
• Tort liability (crop damage)

3. High-risk operational duty

Drone pesticide spraying is treated as:

• Technically advanced but high-risk agricultural activity
• Requires professional licensing and safety compliance

4. Evidence-heavy adjudication

SPC courts rely heavily on:

• Agricultural bureaus
• Drone telemetry data
• Forensic crop inspection reports

5. Protection of agricultural production stability

SPC consistently prioritizes:

• Farmers’ income protection
• Agricultural productivity stability
• Prevention of pesticide misuse damage

IV. Conclusion

The SPC has not isolated drone spraying disputes into a single doctrinal category, but through typical cases on UAV spraying, agricultural contracts, and pesticide damage liability, it has created a clear judicial pattern:

Drone agricultural spraying disputes are adjudicated as a combination of service contract disputes + environmental tort liability disputes + agricultural input safety regulation cases.

The key judicial trend is:

• Strict operator responsibility
• Strong evidentiary requirements
• High protection for farmers and crop safety