Li v RT Mart supermarket.
Plaintiff Li, female, 66 years old, retired worker, is currently employed by Shanghai Air Travel Agency and lives in Shuangyang Road, Shanghai.
Authorized Agent: Zhang Guizhuang, lawyer of Shanghai Liting Law Firm.
Defendant: Yangpu Store of Shanghai RT Mart Co., Ltd.
Person in charge: Luo Jianzhong.
Defendant: Shanghai RT Mart Co., Ltd.
Legal Representative: Xu, board chairman.
Authorized Agent: Zhou Zhiming, lawyer of Shen Da Law Firm.
Li Yin, the plaintiff, filed a lawsuit with Yangpu District People's Court in Shanghai against Yangpu Store of Shanghai RT Mart Supermarket Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as RT Mart Supermarket) and RT Mart Company of Shanghai (hereinafter referred to as RT Mart Company) for property damage compensation. Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People's Court held that the case had a great influence within its jurisdiction, and decided to send it back for retrial in accordance with Articles 19 and 39 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC).
Li, the plaintiff, claimed that when she was shopping in the defendant's supermarket in RT Mart, she went to the No.22 self-service locker set up in the store to deposit her bag and put in 1 yuan coins as prompted. When the coin comes out of the slot again, a password bar with the number 12507 19748 is spit out above the slot, and a box door near the plaintiff's chest automatically opens. The plaintiff then left a black leather bag (including 4660 yuan and 650 yuan for the tour group) and an umbrella in the box, and then went shopping. After shopping, the plaintiff entered the password according to the password column prompt, but couldn't open the door, so she went to the staff of RT Mart Supermarket. After being asked to write down the name and amount of the items stored in the box, the staff used the key to open the box door where the plaintiff identified the items and found that the box was empty. That night, the plaintiff called the police and left a record. Afterwards, the plaintiff negotiated with RT Mart Supermarket and RT Mart Company on this matter, but failed. The plaintiff believes that the supermarket requires consumers to store their property in the self-service locker set up by the supermarket, and the two parties form a custody contract relationship, and the supermarket should bear the custody responsibility for the preserved consumer property. Because RT Mart Supermarket is too credulous about the safety and reliability of the self-service lockers it provides to consumers and neglects management, the plaintiff's money and things stored in the lockers are lost. Request to order the second defendant to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses 53 10 yuan; The legal fees shall be borne by the two defendants.
Defendants RT Mart Supermarket and RT Mart Company argued that it was true that the plaintiff shopped in RT Mart Supermarket that day, but shopping was not necessarily related to bag storage, and not all consumers needed to store bags. The password provided by the plaintiff can only show that the safe deposit box was opened by the plaintiff, but it can't prove that the plaintiff did store items in it, let alone that the items stored were bags, umbrellas and huge sums of money. In addition, the self-service locker used by the plaintiff was provided by RT Mart Supermarket for consumers to use free of charge, for consumers to store odds and ends, and the two parties formed a free loan relationship. RT Mart Supermarket has clearly informed consumers about the use of self-service lockers and matters needing attention. For large items and valuable currency carried by consumers, RT Mart Supermarket also has a manual storage office. Now the self-service locker itself is not damaged, so RT Mart Supermarket and RT Mart Company are not at fault for the loss of goods claimed by the plaintiff, so they do not have to bear civil liability for compensation, and should reject the plaintiff's claim.
The Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People's Court confirmed the following facts that both parties have no objection through evidence exchange and trial before the trial:
Defendant RT Mart Supermarket is a subsidiary of Defendant RT Mart Company.
On the afternoon of June 5438+065438+1 October/kloc-0, 2000, the plaintiff Li shopped at the defendant RT Mart supermarket and used the self-service locker set up by the store. At about 5: 30 pm, after Li finished shopping, he found the staff of RT Mart Supermarket with the password field of the self-service locker number 12507 19748, saying that he had put a wallet (including a tour group of 4660 yuan and an individual of 53 10 yuan) and an umbrella in the store before shopping. RT Mart supermarket staff opened the door of the box identified by Li and found it was empty. The staff told Li that the door he recognized was inconsistent with the door number displayed in the password column he held. However, when the staff opened another door that matched the password column number, they found it was also empty. That night, Li reported the case to wujiaochang town Police Station of Yangpu Branch of Shanghai Public Security Bureau.
The focus of the dispute between the two sides in the trial is:
Focus 1: Whether wallets, articles and umbrellas are put into the self-service locker.
Li, the plaintiff, thinks that at about 3 pm on June 1 65438+1October12000, after receiving the travel expenses of 4,660 yuan from Shanghai Airlines Travel Agency, he took a bus to RT Mart Supermarket at about 4 pm, and the time was continuous, so he should confirm that he put the above money and articles into the supermarket self-service locker.
The evidence submitted by the plaintiff Li for this purpose is:
Evidence 1 and the bar code of the self-service locker with the number of RT Mart supermarket 12507 19748, which prove that Li did send the parcel in RT Mart supermarket at that time;
Evidence 2. 1. The interrogation record of wujiaochang town Police Station of Yangpu Branch of Shanghai Public Security Bureau on June 5438+065438+ 10/day, which proves that Li did report to the police station, and Li also had representations with RT Mart Supermarket.
Evidence 3. Two bills of lading from RT Mart supermarket, which prove that Li did shop in RT Mart supermarket at that time.
Evidence 4. 1. The provisional receipt of Shanghai Air Travel Agency, the certificate issued by Shanghai Air Travel Agency on August 30, 2002, and the testimony of witness Yu Hong, cashier of Shanghai Air Travel Agency, which prove that Li, as a salesman of Shanghai Air Travel Agency, was indeed in No.6 1 1 at about 3 pm in 2000.
Defendants RT Mart Supermarket and RT Mart Company have no objection to the authenticity of the above-mentioned evidence of plaintiff Li, but think that this evidence cannot prove that Li put his wallet, articles and umbrella in the self-service locker of RT Mart Supermarket.
Defendants RT Mart Supermarket and RT Mart Company submitted the testimony of the former director of the reception department of RT Mart Supermarket to explain the complaint and handling process of the plaintiff Li at that time.
Focus 2: What is the legal relationship between consumers using self-service lockers in supermarkets and supermarkets? Is the supermarket liable for compensation for the loss of the items stored in the self-service locker?
Li, the plaintiff, believes that the self-service locker is a storage service derived from shopping, which is set up by supermarkets to attract consumers to shop in their stores and ensure the safety of goods in their stores. The two parties in this case formed a guardianship contract relationship. Now, due to the defendant RT Mart Supermarket's fault or failure to fulfill its management responsibilities, RT Mart Supermarket should bear civil liability for compensation.
Defendants RT Mart Supermarket and RT Mart Company believed that RT Mart Supermarket provided self-service lockers for the convenience of shopping, and the two parties formed a free loan contract relationship for the use of the lockers. The self-service lockers provided by RT Mart Supermarket are qualified products, and RT Mart Supermarket has clearly informed consumers of the usage and precautions, thus fulfilling its legal obligations. The existing evidence can only prove that the plaintiff used the self-service locker in RT Mart supermarket, but it can't prove that the plaintiff really put his own goods in the locker, and it can't prove that the goods claimed by the plaintiff were lost in the locker, so RT Mart Supermarket is not liable for compensation.
Therefore, the defendants RT Mart Supermarket and RT Mart Company submitted the following evidence:
Evidence 1, witness Li, deputy sales director of Shanghai Huaming Electronic Metal Cabinet Factory. Li said in court that the self-service lockers used in RT Mart supermarket are the products of this factory. There are "operation steps" and "package delivery instructions" on the factory time stamp of the product. The password used has ten digits, the first two digits represent the box number of the self-service locker, and the last eight digits are randomly combined and can be repeated 1 100 million times. The lockers in each self-service locker are arranged from left to right, numbered from the upper left and numbered vertically from top to bottom. This product has passed the test of China Shanghai Testing Center, and there has been no quality dispute.
Evidence 2. A set of photos reflecting the packaged items published in conspicuous places in RT Mart supermarkets. The text titled "Precautions for Free Bagging Cabinet" is: 1. Keep the password list properly and don't show it to others; 2. Do not store valuables such as items, cash, mobile phones, wallets, etc. whose value exceeds that of 200 yuan; 3. Self-service packages are self-contained and self-collected, and they are irresponsible for any losses; 4. Keep the bag overnight at your own risk.
Evidence 3. Some work regulations and registration forms of the reception department of RT Mart supermarket illustrate the internal management of self-service lockers in RT Mart supermarket. The main content of the regulation is: for boxes that cannot be opened by normal password input for various reasons, the staff should first obtain the consent of the consumers, then fill in the emergency unpacking form, and then open it with the key in front of the guests, and check whether the items are consistent with the description of the consumers.
Li, the plaintiff, has no objection to the authenticity of the above-mentioned evidence submitted by RT Mart Supermarket and RT Mart Company, but thinks that he does not know the password composition of the self-service locker described by Li, and RT Mart Supermarket has not clearly explained it to him.
In view of the focus of the dispute, Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People's Court found out that:
The coin-returning self-service locker involved in this case was purchased by defendant RT Mart Supermarket from Shanghai Huaming Electronic Metal Cabinet Factory on June 20 141999+1October 65438. At that time, * * * bought 24 self-service lockers, 1 self-service lockers 16, and put them in the store. Each group of self-service lockers is marked with "Operation Steps" and "Package Delivery Instructions". The contents of the "operation steps" are: send the package … 1 and close the open door; 2. coins; 3. Take the password paper and don't show it to others; 4. put the bag in the box; 5. close. Take the bag … 1, and enter the password; 2. take out the items; 3, close the door, you can only open the door once. The contents of "Package Delivery Instructions" are: 1. Please read the "Operation Steps" and "Package Delivery Instructions" carefully. Do not operate after consulting the administrator. This mall implements self-service parcel delivery at your own risk; 2. Close the open door before delivering the package, and then coin in the package; 3. When sending the parcel, you must open the door with coins, and keep the password paper properly when taking the parcel. The password can only be opened once; 4. Do not store cash and valuables; Please take your belongings before 22: 00 that night. In addition, the service desk of RT Mart supermarket also has the service of "delivering big items".
During the trial of this case, the judge conducted an on-site inspection of the defendant RT Mart Supermarket. After on-site inspection, it was confirmed that the door that plaintiff Li said was "automatically opened near the wardrobe" was Box 3 of No.22 self-service locker. The first two digits of the password column of Box 3 should be "03", while the first two digits of the password column held by Li are "12". After opening all the storage boxes in Cabinet 22, the only box with the first two digits of "12" in the code column is Box 12, which is located at the bottom (near the foot) of the whole set of cabinets. During the on-site inspection, Li admitted that she saw "operation steps" and "instructions for sending packages" on the self-service locker on the day of shopping.
Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People's Court held that:
The focus of the dispute between the two sides is one. The evidence submitted by Li, the plaintiff, can only prove that she received the tour fee of 4,660 yuan from the travel agency at about 3 pm on June 1 65438+1October12000. After the interval exceeded 1 hour, she shopped in the defendant RT Mart supermarket and used the self-service locker of the supermarket. The evidence submitted by Li is not enough to prove that he put the bag containing 53 10 yuan into the locker when using the self-service locker.
The second focus of the dispute between the two sides. A contract is an agreement between the parties to establish, change and terminate a civil relationship, and it is a unanimous expression of the will of the parties. Article 365 of the Contract Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates: "A custody contract is a contract in which the depositor keeps the deposit delivered by the depositor and returns it." Article 367 stipulates: "A custody contract shall be established upon delivery of the deposit, unless otherwise agreed by the parties." According to the above-mentioned legal provisions, a custody contract is a practical contract, that is, the establishment of a custody contract requires not only the unanimous expression of the parties to the custody of the deposit, but also the depositor to transfer the possession of the deposit to the custodian. Defendant RT Mart Supermarket, as a large supermarket, provided two ways to store bags for consumers who came to shop: manual storage and self-service storage cabinet storage. On the self-service locker of RT Mart supermarket, there are printed "Operation Steps" and "Instructions for Sending Packages". According to the contents of "self-service parcel delivery is carried out in this mall at your own risk" and "cash and valuables are not allowed to be stored" in the Notes on Parcel Delivery, RT Mart Supermarket has made it clear to consumers that it is only willing to provide self-service lockers for consumers to use and is unwilling to look after the items stored in the lockers. After seeing the express delivery on the self-service locker, the plaintiff Li chose self-service locker instead of manual locker, indicating that Li didn't want to deliver his goods to RT Mart supermarket for safekeeping, but only wanted to use the self-service locker of the supermarket for temporary storage. So the two sides did not reach a guardianship contract. In addition, according to the operation steps of the self-service locker, Li directly obtained the right to use the self-service locker through man-machine dialogue such as "putting in coins, returning coins, spitting out password strips, automatically opening doors, storing articles and closing doors", thus realizing the purpose of storing articles. During this process, Li's articles were not transferred to RT Mart Supermarket for possession, and RT Mart Supermarket did not accept the articles entrusted by Li. Li continued to control and occupy his own articles only by using the self-service locker, while RT Mart Supermarket was unable to fulfill its custody obligation because it did not receive the delivered articles. There is no necessary condition for the establishment of guardianship contract between them. Therefore, the relationship between the two parties using the self-service locker is not a custody contract relationship, but a borrowing contract relationship.
The first paragraph of Article 18 of the Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests stipulates: "Business operators shall ensure that the goods or services they provide meet the requirements of protecting personal and property safety. For goods and services that may endanger personal and property safety, consumers should be given a true explanation and clear warning, and the methods of correctly using goods or receiving services and the methods of preventing harm should be explained and marked. " Defendant RT Mart Supermarket has informed consumers of the correct use of self-service lockers by printing "operation steps" and "package delivery instructions", and made real explanations and clear warnings on matters that may endanger consumers' property safety. According to witness Li's testimony and the fact that the door of the self-service locker was not pried open at that time, it can be concluded that the loan of RT Mart supermarket is flawless and has due efficiency. As an operator, RT Mart Supermarket has fulfilled its legal obligations for self-service lockers lent to consumers free of charge. Article 5 of the Contract Law stipulates: "The parties shall follow the principle of fairness and determine the rights and obligations of each party." Article 6 stipulates: "The parties shall follow the principle of good faith in exercising their rights and performing their obligations." On-site inspection proved that the locker corresponding to the password column held by the plaintiff Li was inconsistent with the locker where Li claimed that he placed the leather bag. In this case, Li can neither prove that he really put the money into the self-service locker, nor prove that the loss of goods he claimed was caused by the quality problem of the self-service locker itself, nor can he prove that the loss of goods he claimed was caused by the intentional or gross negligence of RT Mart supermarket in providing the storage service. Therefore, Li's claim that RT Mart Supermarket and the defendant RT Mart Company should be liable for the alleged loss of goods lacks factual and legal basis and is difficult to support.
To sum up, Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People's Court ruled on June, 2002 10:
Li refused to support the claim.
The acceptance fee of this case is 222 yuan, which shall be borne by the plaintiff Li.
After the judgment of the first instance, the Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People's Court pointed out to the parties that at present, many supermarkets not only provide manual storage services to consumers, but also provide intelligent self-service locker services. This is a good thing, which not only facilitates consumers to shop in the supermarket, but also saves operating costs for the supermarket. However, because the self-service locker service is the product of modern business philosophy and new technology, it broke through the traditional custody category and formed a new borrowing relationship between merchants and consumers, which led to disputes arising from the use of self-service lockers by consumers in this case. In this case, although the defendants, RT Mart Supermarket and RT Mart Company, won the case, one thing needs to be explained: compared with consumers, the operators occupy the advantage of abundant funds and strength, and should provide consumers with more humanized services and try their best to "satisfy and reassure consumers", which is the business purpose that modern operators should consciously follow. As far as this case is concerned, if the supermarket can change the name of "self-service locker" to better reflect the borrowing relationship between the supermarket and consumers due to the use of this locker, misunderstanding can be reduced; If the box number can be clearly displayed on the locker and password column of the self-service locker, it may prevent consumers from taking things by mistake; If the supermarket can use the existing technology to install electronic monitoring equipment in front of the self-service locker, it is clear at a glance whether the lost items claimed by the plaintiff have been put into the locker, and if so, who took them and how. Supermarkets can not be satisfied with stating matters needing attention to consumers in words, but also need to continuously improve the service level, strengthen the management of intelligent self-service lockers, make them more perfect, and strive to create a more convenient, safe and comfortable service environment for consumers.
Defendants RT Mart Supermarket and RT Mart Company sincerely accepted the proposal of Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People's Court, saying that they would learn from this case and effectively improve the service level to consumers.
After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, the parties did not appeal, and the judgment of the first instance became legally effective. (End)