Inn of chain supermarket door is about to close close a business, counterjumper already will issue a chocolate to place goods shelves again by accident, and as it happens crossed chocolate that day the expiration period, be hit by the profession dummy " uncover " . Face a profession to hit dummy the appeal of decuple compensation, whether can the court support? A few days ago, legal provision made first instance adjudicate related basis of court of people of Shanghai Pudong new developed area.
The some chain supermarket that is located in the town austral Shanghai Pudong benefit east door inn, according to the plan at formal on August 3, 2018 put up the shutters, the supermarket still will do business in as usual on August 2 in.
That day, peng Mou discovers inside this supermarket, the Luo Qiao expending a row that displays on goods shelves overcomes force to had exceeded the expiration period one day. Peng Mou pays then bought, immediately and headquarters of this chain supermarket get in touch, response of the other side, can give her an answer.
On September 3, 2018, peng Mou is sued to court of people of Shanghai Pudong new developed area because of business contract dispute. She says in indictment, the supermarket just did not give her echo with respect to this matter all the time, because this requests a court to sentence payment for goods of your supermarket go back 115 yuan, decuple compensation 1150 yuan, pay the of all kinds cost that dimension authority produces 500 yuan.
Argue of the accused supermarket says, undesigned sale expires food, because door inn plans close down, before, counterjumper already draw near the overdue Luo Qiao that expend a row overcomes force to give the clerk of this brand is taken away, as a result its were not taken away, on August 2, the counterjumper of relief not know the inside story, take again placed goods shelves.
Peng Mou claims the supermarket did not give her echo, the supermarket says to be in all the time however contact with her, is this how to return a responsibility after all? Peng Mou admits in front courtyard careful, "Had not received the telephone call of the supermarket, because my mobile phone became bad. Because my mobile phone became bad..
The supermarket expresses, compensate for charge to must be assumed by supermarket employee proper motion, wish to pay Peng Mou the in part of amount of the first appeal. Peng Mou is the profession hits dummy, the department is bought intentionally expire commodity, be not a client, request court adjudicates lawfully.
The Peng Mou in front courtyard careful admits, oneself are in pay before buying, had discovered chocolate expires. Since such, why to still choose to pay? "I am the profession is supervised, everybody can be supervised. Knowing a holiday to buy a holiday also is consumer, major makes a holiday me, but I also am consumer, this is not disobeyed prohibit sexual regulation. " Peng Mou says.
The court thinks, according to legal provision, during party examines without the agreement, vendee ought to be in the amount of the content that discover or ought to discover sign or during what quality does not accord with an agreement is reasonable inside the announcement sells a person. In specific maintain " reasonable during " when, ought to between integrated party trade property, trade all sorts of elements such as the purpose, undertake judging according to honest credence principle.
The fact that finds out from the court and the result that front courtyard careful investigates are knowable, peng Mou has the business contract dispute that much origin food exceeds the expiration period and mentions in Shanghai, it is thus clear that its are having prep above to problem of food expiration period the attention of general vendee is spent, the exceeds expiration period commodity oneness that also sufficient capacity and experience buy food and its place quote to place, associated sex assumes more strict proof responsibility.
This case department exceeds the business contract dispute that expiration period place causes because of chocolate, find out a fact integratedly, before accuser is bought, with respect to discovery this goods already spent the expiration period, after buying, because of oneself the reason brings about a supermarket to just cannot solve a problem with its connection, and the lawsuit about commodity expiration period just mentions after a month, did not use up the obligation that tells in time, the legal consequence that produces from this should be assumed by its oneself.
The court thinks accordingly, peng Mou asks the accused assumes corresponding liability to pay compensation for the food that does not accord with food safety standard in order to sell, the basis is insufficient, the court does not grant to support. But the supermarket gives Fu Peng some payment for goods and compensatory money of one's own accord 632.5 yuan, do not have undeserved, the court gives support. The both sides after the court decision all did not appeal, this proposal is current already become effective.
