imitationhermeslindybagbraceletnecklacepricetrend from zroessgs viesoess's blog

The highest law then fake a compensable ten to pay a lose three applause

It is worth noting that seven of these related to punitive damages. According to the current laws and regulations, punitive damages are generally referred to as the two key words 'fake a lose ten' and 'refund a lose three' (former 'consumer law' is 'refund one lose one'). The current business environment, fake rampant, fraud is not uncommon, consumers cry bitterly. Punitive damages if the legislative purpose can be fully reflected, the unbearable business environment should be able to get a great deal of change, of course, consumer rights and interests will be able to get even more powerful protection. Yin Chongyi v Wuhan Hanfu supermarket Co., Ltd. Hanyang Branch contract dispute the case

- Operators sell expired food, which is known to sell unsafe food, consumers have the right to request the refund of the price and pay compensation of ten times (a) the basic case

On June 17, 2013, Yin Chongyi paid a fee of RMB251 to Wuhan Hanyu Supermarket Co., Ltd. Hanyang Branch (hereinafter referred to as Hanfu Supermarket) for purchasing a box of peach blossom ejiao cake. The production date of the food packaging indicated in August 2012 On the 7th, the shelf life is 10 months. After the purchase, Yin Chongyi found that the food had passed the expiration date, that is, it requested no return to the supermarket. He then sued Hanyang District People's Court in Wuhan City, Hubei Province, requesting Hanfu Supermarket to refund the purchase price of 251 yuan, repaying the payment of 2510 yuan ten times and paying the transportation fee of 3000 Yuan, the spirit of comfort gold 3000 yuan (b) the referee results

The court of first instance held that the shopping invoice provided by Yin Chongyi could confirm the establishment of the contract of sale and purchase with Hanfu Supermarket. About Yan Chongyi now holds the expired and filed a lawsuit Peach Blossom cake is the Hanfu supermarket sales of goods identified. First of all, Yin Chongyi provided goods in kind and shopping invoice, completed the proof of consumer proof of consumer shopping, and Yin Chongyi on the day of purchase to reflect the situation to the Hanfu supermarket return, the two sides failed to negotiate on the same day to the Wuhan City Administration for Industry and Commerce Hanyang Branch made a complaint, Yin Chong Yi reflect product quality problems are timely. Hanfu supermarket argued that Yin Chongyi objection to return the expired Peach Blossom Cake is not provided by Hanfu supermarket stores, but did not submit to the court the same period of purchase evidence that the store is not Hanford supermarket sales, and Yin Chongyi Peach Blossom Cake is not provided A batch of products. Hanfu supermarket can not provide complete inspection records of the purchase of food, should bear the burden of proof can not. It sells food that birkins handbags replica exceeds its shelf life as prohibited by law. Accordingly, the Court of First Instance ruled in accordance with the provisions of Article 96 of the Food Safety Law that Hanfu Supermarket will refund the purchase price of 251 yuan, repay the purchase price of 2510 yuan ten times and compensate Yin Chongyi the transportation fee of 500 yuan. Hanfu supermarket appeal to the original trial found that the facts and applicable law is wrong. Wuhan Intermediate People's Court of the second instance that the Hanfu supermarket claim that the goods involved in the case not by its sales, but can not provide sufficient evidence to prove, and its Yin Chongyi shopping invoices issued no objection, so its support is not supported . Hanfu supermarket sales of expired food is prohibited by law, according to the law should bear the liability for compensation. The court rejected the claim that it did not intend to sell overdue food and should not be liable for compensation. The court upheld the original judgment II. Liu Dismissed the Dispute over the Sales and Purchase Contract of Shaanxi Lixin Pharmacy

- Operators selling counterfeit health products of other lot numbers belong to the sale of food known to be unsafe. Consumers have the right to request refund of the purchase price and compensation of ten times the price (a) Basic facts

October 19, 2012, Liu Xin to Shaanxi Lixin Pharmacy (hereinafter referred to Lixin Pharmacy) to pay 280 yuan to buy 4 boxes of 'weight loss slimming capsules', the product packaging marked the approval number Wei Wei Jian Zi (2003) No. 0129 . Liu new unopened after purchase, not edible. After landing on the State Food and Drug Administration website, did not find the product information. Another according to the product packaging marked on the approval number Wei Jian Zi (2003) No. 0129, check out by the People's Republic of China Ministry of Health approved the symbol under the health product name: 'Qiao sister weight loss capsules.' Liu Xin believes that the purchase of health food products not registered in the State Food and Drug Administration should be unqualified counterfeit products, then to Xi'an, Shaanxi Province Lianhu District People's Court prosecution, requesting the establishment of a new pharmacy refund 280 yuan, ten times the compensation Purchase price of 2800 yuan (two) the referee results

The trial of the court after trial found that the new drugstore sales of 'fast slimming slimming capsule' belongs to health food, the food marked 'edible health word (2003) No. 0129' approval number, and the State Food and Drug Administration website In the same approval number of the product name 'Pretty sister weight loss capsules' are inconsistent, Lixin pharmacies also failed to provide the product to allow the production of supporting documents. Article 5 of the 'Measures for the Administration of Health Food' stipulates: 'Every food claimed to have health-care functions must be examined and confirmed by the Ministry of Health.' Article 21, Item 5 of the Measures stipulates: 'Health food labels and instructions must comply with relevant national standards And requirements, and indicate the health food approval number. ' Lixin pharmacy sales of health food 'slimming slimming capsule' Department of fraudulent use of the approval number of the goods, its behavior in violation of the above provisions. Lixin pharmacy as a seller, did not review the relevant approval certificate in the purchase, so that the product into circulation, its acts constitute the 'Food Safety Law,' Article 96, paragraph 2, 'the sale of food that does not meet the food safety standards' , Should be refunded in accordance with the law and pay compensation. The hospital then ordered the establishment of a new pharmacy to refund the purchase hermes birkin 50 replica price of 280 yuan Liu, Liu compensation ten times the shopping price of 2800 yuan. Lixin Pharmacy did not appeal Third, Wang Xin v. Millet technology limited liability company online shopping contract dispute

- The seller sells goods online for price fraudulent activities to induce consumers to purchase the goods. Even if the quality of the goods is qualified, the consumers have the right to request the sellers to 'refund one lost three' and pay for the guaranteed one. Wang Xin submitted an order, on the same day by Alipay Xiaomi payment of 108 yuan. On the 12th of the same month, Wang Xin received the above two mobile power and supporting data lines. The same month on the 17th, Wang Xin found that the use of 5200mAh mobile power supply original data line can not be fully charged to the phone, so contact with millet's customer service, requiring the exchange of data lines. Xiaomi company agreed to exchange and has received the data line. Since then, Wang Xin to Xiaomi's implementation of price fraud on the grounds to Beijing Haidian District People's Court, requesting the lifting of online shopping contract, Wang Xin returned to Xiaomi two sets of mobile power and asked Xiaomi: 1, Wang Xin compensation 500 yuan; 2, refund Wang Xin purchase price of 108 yuan; 3, pay Wang Xin courier fee 15 yuan; 4, compensation Wang Xin traffic costs, printing fees, copying fees 100 yuan

Court of First Instance that the online shopping contract involved in the case, the company does not constitute a fraud Xiaoxin, Wang Xin's lack of evidence of litigation, it was dismissed its claim. Wang Xin was dissatisfied and appealed to Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court alleging that Xiaomi Company hit an advertisement 69 yuan for the original price of 69 yuan for 'Rice Noodle Festival' selling 49 yuan a week in advance to deceive consumers in lining up and buying. The advertisement on the day of sale was still on sale. However, But sold for 69 yuan, millet companies set a regular online shopping, buying time less than 20 minutes, the behavior has constituted price fraud. The court of second instance held that the online shopping contract involved was valid and consumers had the right to fair trade and the right to know the goods. Due to the particularity of the sales network of Xiaomi Co., Ltd., the advertisement is directly linked to the buying interface of the product and the consumer is required to make a purchase within a short period of time. Millet company now recognizes millet mall activities interface error, there is the advertising price and the actual settlement price inconsistencies, but the explanation for the computer background system error. Accordingly, the court ruled in accordance with the law Wang Xin returned to the two companies Xiaomi mobile power supply, Xiaomi compensation at the end of Wang Xin 500 yuan, refund of Wang Xin payment of 108 yuan, dismissed Wang Xin other litigation request Fourth, Li Xiaodong v. Company online shopping contract dispute case

- E-commerce as a seller to use other people's network to sell goods in the process of fraud, after the transaction with the consumer to reach a compensation agreement without performance, consumers have the right to request the seller in accordance with the agreement to assume liability (a) the basic case

On August 9, 2012, Li Xiaodong purchased 6 bottles of white wine sold by Taixu Brewery Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Brewery Co., Ltd.) on Taobao.com. The description of the online product page is [Liquor 525 Wuliangye (1618) 500ml] , The transaction price of 8349 yuan. After the completion of the transaction, Li Xiaodong found that the purchase of the liquor in the Taobao shop in the Brewery Taobao shop marked 'special price and original price' equal, then report to Beijing Price Report Center. After that, Li Xiaodong and Jiuxian Company reached a 'Understanding of Mutual Understanding', which stipulated that both parties should complete the return and refund procedures within 5 days after the signing of the agreement, and Jiuxian Company should compensate Li Xiaodong for 8394 yuan, assuming one party breach of contract and bear liquidated damages of 20% of the total amount. Due to the fact that Jiuxian Company did not fulfill the agreement, Li Xiaodong sued Binhai County People's Court birkin hermes price fake of Jiangsu Province for requesting compensation of RMB 8,394 for Jiuxian Company and undertaking liquidated damages of RMB 1,678.8 (II) Judgment Result

Court of Appeal that the operators and consumers to trade should follow the principles of voluntariness, equality, fairness, honesty and credibility. During the transaction, the operator shall provide consumers with real information about the goods and shall not make false propaganda. In the case of online transactions in the present case, Jiuxian Company sells the special products on the internet to mislead the consumers. Its acts have constituted fraud and should bear the legal liabilities in accordance with the law. Li Xiaodong reached an understanding agreement with Jiuxian Company in the course of claim for compensation. As Jiuxian Company failed to birkin by hermes replica perform its obligations as stipulated in the agreement, its act constituted a breach of contract and should bear the liability for breach of contract. Therefore, Li Xiaodong requires Brewery Company to fulfill its claim for compensation according to the agreement, meets the requirements of the law and should support it in accordance with the law. After suing the court for legal summonses, Jiuxian Company refuses to attend the court proceedings without proper reason as a waiver of its right of defense and shall bear the adverse legal consequences against it. The court of appeal complained that the liquor company paid Li Xiaodong compensation amount of 8,394 yuan and assumed liquidated damages of 1,678.8 yuan, totaling 10,072.8 yuan. Brewery Co., Ltd. has not appealed V. Fan Jianwu v. Guangdong Province Cultural Relics Headquarters sale contract dispute

- The seller sells jade bracelets in ordinary garnet jade bracelets, posing a fraud to consumers, consumers have the right to request return to the seller, the seller to the consumer to refund the purchase price and pay three times the compensation (a) the basic case

On April 17, 2014, Fan Jianwu purchased a bracelet at the Cultural Relic Headquarters in Guangdong Province (hereinafter referred to as the Cultural Relic Headquarters) for 17,100 yuan. The shop opened an invoice for it and the invoice contained the goods as 'yqgda 0765 bracelet ', The amount of 17,100 yuan. On the 24th of the same month, Fan Jianwu went back to the store and asked for an invoice. The store then recovered the original invoice and re-issued an invoice for Fan Jianwu. The invoice contained the goods as 'yqgda 0765 jade bracelet.' The purchase of bracelets by the Guangdong Provincial Institute of Geology identified as 'water calcium aluminum garnet bracelets.' After the store should request, both parties jointly commissioned by the Guangdong Provincial Jewelry and Precious Metal Testing Center bracelet re-appraisal, appraisal result is 'Garnet jade bracelet.' Fan Jianwu that heritage of the General Assembly will be ordinary garnet bracelets posing as jade bracelets for sale, to fake enough to pose a fraud, then Yuexiu District, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province People's Court prosecution, requesting the cultural relics headquarters to refund the purchase price of 17,100 yuan, according to law Compensation for its 51,300 yuan.

Previous post     
     Blog home

The Wall

No comments
You need to sign in to comment

Post

By zroessgs viesoess
Added Dec 28 '17

Rate

Your rate:
Total: (0 rates)

Archives