Time: 65438+February 2, 2002
Venue: Civil Trial Chamber of Ning 'an People's Court
Characters:
Judge: Sima Yan.
Clerk: Guo Feng.
Plaintiff: Qin Liang, male, born in February 1976, works in Ning 'an Library and lives in Room 306, Building 4, Area 3, Ning 'an Garden.
Defendant Zhang Jun, male, born in May, 1972, owner of Tianda Furniture Plaza in Ning 'an City, living at No.28 Tongjiang Road in Ning 'an City.
Authorized Agent: Yao Hai, male, lawyer of Hao Wei Law Firm in Ning 'an.
Cause of action: consumer rights protection dispute
Overview of the case:
(1) court preparation stage)
Clerk:
(a) to check the appearance of the parties and their agents ad litem in court and invite them to sit down.
(2) The court discipline now declares:
1. All court personnel should obey the unified command of the judge, turn off all communication tools, observe the court order and forbid smoking.
2. The observers must keep quiet, do not make noise, applaud or interrupt, and do not enter the trial area. If you have any comments, you can put them forward after the recess.
3. The parties and their agents ad litem shall not leave the court halfway. If they leave the court without authorization, the plaintiff will drop the lawsuit. If it is the defendant, it will be judged by default according to law.
4. Judges or bailiffs have the right to stop acts that violate court discipline and hinder civil litigation activities. Those who don't listen to stop can be admonished, ordered to leave or fined or detained according to law; If the circumstances are serious, criminal responsibility shall be investigated according to law.
(3) Please ask the presiding judge to sit down.
(four) report that the judge and the parties have appeared in court, please hold a hearing.
Presiding Judge: Now the trial begins. First, check the identity of the parties. Plaintiff, your name, age, occupation and address? Is there an agent?
Plaintiff: My name is Qin Liang, and I was born in February 1976. I work in the library of this city and live in Room 306, Building 4, Area 3, Ning 'anyuan, this city. There is no entrusted agent.
Presiding Judge: Defendant, what's your name, age, occupation and address? Is there an agent?
Defendant: My name is Zhang Jun, and I was born in May of 1972. I run Tianda Furniture Plaza in this city and live in Room 203, No.28 Tongjiang Road, this city. I entrust Yao Hai, a lawyer of Hao Wei Law Firm in this city, as the general agent.
Authorized Agent: Yao Hai, male, lawyer of Hao Wei Law Firm in this city.
Presiding Judge: According to the provisions of Articles 142, 143 and 145 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the Civil Trial Chamber of Ning 'an People's Court today applied summary procedure to hear the case of the plaintiff Qin Liang and the defendant Zhang Jun's dispute over consumer rights protection. This case was tried by Sima Yan, the judge of our court, and Guo Feng, the clerk of our court, made a record. The court has informed the parties of their litigation rights and obligations in writing and will not repeat them. According to the provisions of Article 46 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), our court explains the right to withdraw the lawsuit. If a judge has the following three circumstances, which may affect the fair trial of a case, the parties have the right to apply for his withdrawal orally or in writing: 1, the parties to this case or the close relatives of the parties or agents ad litem; 2. Interested in the case; 3. Having other relations with the parties to the case, which may affect the fair trial of the case. Now ask the parties whether to apply for withdrawal?
Plaintiff: No application.
Defendant: No application.
(2) Court investigation stage)
Presiding Judge: We conduct a court fact investigation, and the plaintiff states the facts first.
Plaintiff: 200 1 10/On October 28th, accompanied by my father Qin and my girlfriend, I bought a set of wooden furniture (including a three-person sofa, two single person sofa, a big coffee table and a small coffee table) and a TV cabinet from the defendant, with a total price of RMB 3,290.
During the purchase process, I asked the defendant many times about the material of the furniture, and the defendant was very sure that it was a kind of rosewood, and said that an invoice could be issued. In this case, I believed the defendant's claim that although it was not good quality mahogany, it was mahogany after all, so I bought furniture. The above facts are confirmed by the purchased furniture in kind, purchase invoices and the testimony of witnesses Qin, Qin and Qin.
In the process of use, it was found that the material of this furniture turned out to be ordinary wood, not rosewood. I immediately asked the defendant to return the goods, etc. After mediation by Anshi Consumers Association, the defendant refused.
To sum up, I think the defendant did not fulfill his obligation to tell the plaintiff the true information of the goods he bought in the process of selling furniture. Instead, in order to do more business, the plaintiff deliberately answered irrelevant questions, misled and deceived the plaintiff, causing the plaintiff to make a wrong statement of intention and buy the defendant's so-called "mahogany" furniture against his true meaning. The defendant violated the basic principle of honesty and credit that should be followed in civil activities, violated the plaintiff's right to know the real situation of the purchased goods, deliberately concealed the real situation and stated false facts, which constituted fraud.
According to the General Principles of the Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) on the Protection of Consumers' Rights and Interests, and the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), we bring a lawsuit to your hospital and request a judgment according to law. My proposition is:
1, and ordered the defendant to return the goods and the plaintiff's furniture for 3920 yuan;
2. double indemnity, that is, 3,920 yuan;
Presiding Judge: Next, the defendant will reply.
Defendant's attorney: The plaintiff's statement is untrue. 200110/on October 28th, the defendant did sell the furniture to the plaintiff, but the defendant did not tell the plaintiff that the furniture was made of rosewood. The defendant traded with the plaintiff in good faith. This can be seen from the price. If this set of furniture is really "mahogany", it will cost more than 1000 yuan, not nearly 4000 yuan. As for the "pear sofa" written on the invoice, it refers to the design with pear flowers in appearance quality and appearance. The name itself is quoted from the supplier, the manufacturer in Wujiang County. Therefore, I don't think the defendant cheated the plaintiff and asked the court to dismiss the plaintiff's claim.
Presiding judge: According to the original defendant's statement, both parties have no objection to the fact that the plaintiff bought wooden furniture of RMB 3,920 from the defendant on October 28th, 200 1 year/kloc-0. The bill of lading issued by the defendant to the plaintiff on the same day was recorded as a set of "gorgeous sofas" and a set of "gorgeous low cabinets", and both parties had no objection to this. The main focus of the dispute between the two parties is whether the defendant has cheated in the sales process; Does the "pear" on the delivery note refer to the material of the furniture? The two sides provided relevant evidence around this focus.
Plaintiff: (Providing invoice) The defendant's statement that "Huali" is the appearance quality is wrong, and the "Huali" on the bill of lading issued by the defendant is misleading to consumers.
Presiding Judge: Does the defendant have any objection to the invoice?
Defendant: There is no objection to the authenticity and contents of the invoice provided by the plaintiff. I provide the delivery note 5438+0 dated September 25th, 2006. It is proved that the name of the manufacturer is indicated by "Huali" at the time of delivery. In addition, there are "arowana fish". So the pear here refers to the appearance quality rather than the internal wood.
Presiding judge: What is the plaintiff's opinion on the evidence provided by the defendant and the contents to be proved?
Plaintiff: Although the delivery note says "Flower Dragon, Flower Fish". But there is no such wood, and this is a matter between suppliers and distributors, and consumers are unaware of it. The use of "Huali" on this particular commodity itself misled consumers, and the defendant made false statements in the sales process.
Presiding Judge: The defendant has been engaged in furniture business for many years. What kinds of redwoods are included? Is rosewood included?
Defendant: rosewood produced in Thailand and Myanmar is collectively called Southeast Asia rosewood, which is recognized by the state. This is real rosewood. Other countries are miscellaneous wood, mahogany is the lowest among mahogany, and ebony is the highest grade.
Presiding judge: Do the defendant and the defendant have anything to add to the facts?
Plaintiff: No. ..
Defendant: No. ..
Presiding Judge: The parties have nothing to add to the facts, and the fact investigation is over. The following is the court debate around the focus of the dispute.
First, the plaintiff will speak in the debate.
Court debate stage)
Plaintiff: I think the "pear" written on the invoice refers to wood, which is what most consumers will think. The plaintiff used the word "gorgeous" on furniture to mislead consumers into thinking that the material was "gorgeous". Just like "silk" cloth, most people will think it is "silk" cloth, but will not think that the pattern is like silk cloth. As for the price of furniture, we can't explain the material. Consumers only know that ordinary mahogany furniture is expensive, and how much is poor quality mahogany? Consumers are not very clear. Just like goods in shopping malls are often sold at half price or even lower discounts. It was under the misleading of the defendant that the plaintiff was willing to buy this "gorgeous" furniture for 3920 yuan. The defendant's fraud is obvious. Even if the purpose of fraud is not to make huge profits, it is to facilitate transactions and make profits. Therefore, the court is requested to support the plaintiff's claim.
Presiding Judge: Next, the defendant made a speech in the debate.
Authorized agent of the defendant: 1. The defendant did not commit fraud. The plaintiff took a fancy to this sofa. During the purchase process, the plaintiff carefully learned some information about the furniture from the defendant, and the defendant also truthfully told the common materials and prices. In fact, the sofa purchased by the defendant also includes Hualong, Huayu and other varieties.
When the plaintiff asked about the materials, the defendant told the truth. And the plaintiff should also know that the "mahogany" sofa should be much higher than 3920 yuan. It is impossible to buy a real mahogany sofa for 3920 yuan.
The defendant knows the seriousness of selling fake and inferior commodities, and the facts will not take the risk to cheat.
Defendant: The "flower pear" on the invoice refers to the pattern carved in pear shape, the "fish" carved on the "flower fish" and the "dragon" carved in dragon shape. The so-called sofa that distinguishes different patterns. If it is a real rosewood sofa, it should be recorded as "rosewood" sofa, and "rosewood" sofa does not mean "rosewood" sofa.
Presiding Judge: Both sides hold their own words.
Plaintiff: In fact, there is no obvious "pear flower" pattern on the furniture mentioned by the defendant, but "Kirin" is carved. There is no "fish" on the flower fish sofa. Therefore, what the defendant said cannot be established. The average consumer only knows that "Huali" is a kind of mahogany, but it is impossible to know its quality category in such detail. The defendant told the plaintiff that it was inferior wood, and the plaintiff was convinced that the selling price was higher than that of ordinary wood. If the defendant hadn't told us that this was a pear-wood sofa, we wouldn't have bought this furniture.
Defendant: The plaintiff claimed that there was no evidence to prove that there was false propaganda in the sales process, and the invoice was recorded as mahogany sofa, which was misunderstood by the plaintiff. If the invoice says mahogany sofa, then I can say something.
Presiding Judge: There is no new debate between the two sides. The debate is over. Let's ask the final opinion of the parties.
Plaintiff, any final comments?
Plaintiff: Insist on the claim.
Presiding Judge: Defendant, any final comments?
Defendant: Request to dismiss the plaintiff's claim.
(four) the court mediation and judgment stage)
Presiding Judge: We will mediate this case according to the relevant provisions of the law. Defendant, what is your mediation opinion?
Defendant: I agree to return the furniture without damage, but I don't agree with double indemnity.
Presiding Judge: What is your mediation opinion, plaintiff?
Plaintiff: Before the lawsuit, both parties had negotiated many times, but the defendant did not have the sincerity to mediate. I don't want to mediate now, waiting for the verdict.
Presiding Judge: Because the plaintiff does not agree to mediation, our court will no longer do mediation work, and the following sentence will be pronounced.
We believe that the facts of this case are clear and can close the case.
The plaintiff bought a sofa in the furniture plaza operated by the defendant for daily consumption needs, and a dispute occurred between the two parties. The plaintiff's request to use the Consumer Protection Law to handle this case was in line with the law and was adopted.
Consumers have the right to know the real situation of the purchased goods. In this case, when the plaintiff, as a consumer, buys furniture from the defendant, the defendant, as an operator, should provide the consumer with the real information of the goods it sells, and shall not make misleading false propaganda. There is a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant about the true information of the traded goods. The plaintiff supported his claim on the grounds that the defendant made false propaganda about the material when selling furniture, which the defendant denied, explaining that pears did not refer to the material of furniture, but to the appearance quality and pattern of furniture. Whether the defendant's explanation is reasonable. Our analysis shows that rosewood belongs to the category of mahogany, and the quality of rosewood furniture is different from that of furniture made of general materials. Generally, the words rosewood will be marked on wooden furniture, unless the operator specifically reminds consumers that this rosewood does not refer to rosewood, otherwise it will be considered rosewood. Therefore, the defendant's explanation is unreasonable. This court will not accept this letter.
Whether the defendant cheated in the process of selling sofas to the plaintiff is one of the main disputes in this case. Fraud refers to the behavior that one party intentionally informs the other party of false information or conceals true information to induce the other party to make a wrong expression of intention. Fraud can be positive behavior, such as false propaganda, or negative inaction, such as concealing the real situation and not telling it. In this case, the defendant denied that he made false propaganda in the process of selling furniture to the plaintiff, but even if he did not make false propaganda, he did not give a special explanation to the plaintiff. In order to obtain favorable trading results, he violated the principles of fairness and good faith and deliberately concealed the real situation of the goods, causing the plaintiff to fall into a wrong understanding and buy the goods. Therefore, it should be recognized that the defendant has intentional fraud in the business process. Whether the operator obtains huge profits does not affect the composition of fraud. The defendant denied the existence of fraud on the grounds that the furniture was not sold at the price of rosewood, which could not be established.
The Law on the Protection of Consumers' Rights and Interests stipulates that if a business operator commits fraud in providing goods or services, it shall increase the compensation for the losses it has suffered according to the requirements of consumers, and the amount of the increase in compensation shall be twice the price of the goods purchased by consumers or the cost of receiving services. Therefore, the plaintiff asked the defendant to return the goods and double the price, and our court supported it. To sum up, according to the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 35 and Article 49 of the Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests, the judgment is as follows:
(All rise)
Presiding judge: 1. Defendant Zhang Jun returned the plaintiff Qin Liang's furniture price of 3920 yuan, and increased the compensation for the plaintiff's furniture price of 3920 yuan, totaling 7840 yuan.
2. The plaintiff returned to the defendant a set of sofas (including a three-person sofa, two sets of single person sofa and two coffee tables) and a TV cabinet purchased from the defendant.
The first and second items mentioned above shall be performed within five days after the judgment takes effect.
330 yuan, the case acceptance fee, and 200 yuan, other legal fees, totaling 530 yuan, shall be borne by the defendant.
If you refuse to accept this judgment, you can submit one original and two copies of the appeal to the Intermediate People's Court of Ningtai City within 15 days from the date of service of the judgment.
(Sit down)
The court is closed. The parties shall read the written record and sign it in our court within five days after the hearing.
Clerk: All rise. After the presiding judge withdrew from the court, the parties and observers withdrew from the court.