Hot search screenshot
Does the court support the act of buying goods knowing that they are defective and demanding punitive damages? Recently, Zhaoyuan Court heard such a case.
On March 10, Sun Mou, a college student, bought 6 cases of gold foil wine from a liquor store at a price of 14328 yuan, filmed the video of the purchase and invoicing, and entrusted a lawyer to handle the dispute over the sales contract.
In the case of high awareness of wine, Sun identified wine to Wang. After Wang Mai bought five bottles, Sun reported to the market supervision department. On April 1 day, Sun stipulated that "food producers shall not purchase or use gold and silver foil powder to produce processed food". Sue the operators and producers for a refund of 14328 yuan and compensation of 10 times.
The court held through trial that Sun, as a college student, bought six boxes of gold foil wine at one time and demanded ten times compensation, which was not a normal consumption behavior. Conspiring with Wang Moumou to buy gold foil wine and making profits through complaints are abnormal consumers. The act of selling gold foil wine in liquor stores violates public order, and the contract between the two parties for buying and selling gold foil wine is invalid. Sun asked the defendant's liquor store to refund the payment of 14328 yuan, which was supported according to law. Sun should return the gold foil wine he bought and reject Sun's other claims.
Image source: Shaanxi Net Bailu video screenshot
Zhaoyuan Court, after hearing the case, held that there were two focuses in this case:
One is whether Sun is a normal consumer.
Second, whether the sales behavior of liquor companies and the production behavior of a liquor company meet the constitutive requirements of loss compensation and ten times compensation stipulated in the Food Safety Law, and whether Sun's claim for returning the payment and assuming ten times compensation liability should be supported.
Zhaoyuan court held that Sun, as a freshman in a university, bought six boxes of gold foil wine at one time and recorded the whole process to keep the evidence, and immediately entrusted a lawyer to claim ten times compensation through litigation the day after the purchase, which was not a normal consumption behavior and violated the principle of good faith in civil activities. In addition, Sun has entrusted a lawyer, who is highly aware and cautious about the liquor involved. Still conspiring with the public king to buy gold foil wine, and complaining to the market supervision department until the lawsuit is profitable. The plaintiff is an abnormal consumer.
Image source: Shaanxi Net Bailu video screenshot
At the same time, whether there are food safety hazards in gold foil wine should adhere to the substantive judgment standard. The gold foil wine involved was produced before the publication of the Notice. Sun has no evidence to prove that gold foil wine has substantial harm. On the day he obtained the invoice of the restaurant, he entrusted a lawyer to handle the dispute over the sales contract, and then bought the gold foil wine with others under the condition of litigation confirmation. Therefore, Sun bought the goods involved in the case in order to get ten times compensation, and his standards, specifications and his purchase behavior were not satisfactory.
Sun's consumer interests and consumer safety have not been harmed and endangered, and it cannot be determined that the production behavior and sales behavior of a liquor company have infringed the plaintiff's consumer rights and interests, so his request for ten times compensation is not supported according to law.
After the publication of the notice, the liquor store sold gold foil wine to Sun Mou, which violated public order and the contract between the two parties for buying and selling gold foil wine was invalid. Sun Mou asked the defendant's liquor store to refund the payment of RMB 14328, which was supported according to law. Sun Mou should return the gold foil wine purchased from the defendant's hotel. As a producer of gold foil wine involved, a liquor company should bear joint and several liability.
Image source: Shaanxi Net Bailu video screenshot
Zhaoyuan court ruled that the defendant liquor company returned Sun's payment of RMB 14328 in accordance with the General Principles of Civil Law, Consumer Protection Law and Food Safety Law, and the defendant Shandong Liquor Co., Ltd. was jointly and severally liable; Sun returned 6 cases of gold foil wine from a liquor company in Shandong and rejected Sun's other claims.
After the verdict, Sun appealed to the Yantai Intermediate People's Court and later withdrew his appeal. The first-instance judgment has now come into effect.
The court held that "buying fakes while knowing that there are certain defects in the goods" means that the actor still buys the goods and demands compensation from the producers or sellers on the grounds that the purchased goods are defective.
The "gold foil wine" involved in this case is not a "fake" commodity in the traditional sense, but a product with legal licensing procedures and complete product identification, food production license and certificate. After 65438+2022129 October, the production and operation of food containing gold and silver foil powder were regulated by administrative organs, which does not mean that the product is of course dangerous after the implementation of new administrative regulations. Excessive heavy metals constitute unqualified food safety or defective food. The Food Safety Law clearly stipulates that it is not allowed to produce and operate foods such as pathogenic microorganisms and heavy metals that exceed food safety standards. The plaintiff should provide evidence to prove whether the gold foil added to the wine involved exceeds the food safety standards and is harmful to human body.
According to reports, there are different views on the nature of the behavior of "knowing fakes and buying fakes" in judicial practice.
National Business Daily Comprehensive Zhaoyuan Court Micro Signal, Shaanxi Net Bailu Video