Consumer thinks he was bought in the supermarket expire food, taking shopping bill to come academic, and supermarket however firm say: "My home does not sell this goods! " reject compensate to pay. Have one's heart filled with depressed and discontented consumer to appeal to the businessman then to the court, ask its return payment for goods and give decuple compensation to add up to more than yuan 3000. Recently, court of people of division of grave of tiger of city of Jiangsu province Suzhou adjudicates the accused supermarket returns accuser payment for goods and take into consideration the circumstances is compensated for lawfully, add up to about 1000 yuan.
In August 2016, tang Mou buys powdered milk in A supermarket, wait for city of favorable balance of trade to take bill to look, discovery has expired. "Spent 280 yuan to because of,buy one canister shellfish at that time beautiful milk powder, the manufacturing date that just went out to discover milk powder is on July 4, 2014, the expiration period comes on July 3, 2016. " Tang Mou sees shape turns round instantly, one complain talk things over not if really, go to law< then program, requirement supermarket returns 280 yuan, and according to commodity price decuple undertake compensatory.
Supermarket argue says, the course checks the product that did not examine experience case batch in stock notes. And before Tang Mou had had with respect to the other product of this type sue a record, reason suspects Tang Mou is not average consumer, however intended " touch porcelain " .
The court thinks, advocates whose quote is the most primary quote responsibility allocates a principle, the oneness of the thing that proves business contract wins the bid is the bargainor's responsibility, the content of the mark that because offer,accords with quality requirement is the bargainor's responsibility. In this case, tang Mou offerred shopping bill of experience case product and supermarket to serve as evidence, proof supermarket sale expires product. The supermarket showed his to replenish onr's stock records old warehouse and be faced keep a record, in order to prove its had not sold the product of experience case batch. But because this evidence fastens the accused,just make alone, and accuser proves to its force does not grant to approbate, bargainor behoove offers evidence to prove its advocate further. But the accused fails to offer evidence to prove experience case product is not further is him sale, answer to bear adverse consequence by its.
And suspect to the accused " Tang Mou is ' touch porcelain ' " doubt, the court thinks via cognizance, undeniable accuser has had the lawsuit about similar product to record before this, but can not think from this accuser this lawsuit is it is a purpose in order to seek profit. Then integrated all sorts of elements consider to make afore-mentioned court decisions.
(Fu Wenzou of gold of former beautiful jade exemplaries)
■ judge view ■
Basis " law of safety of food of People's Republic of China " regulation, because buy the food that does not accord with food safety standard,the premise of decuple compensation is consumer and be damaged, and requirement operator is known perfectly well those who manage is the food that does not accord with food safety standard. In this case, the product that accuser buys expires a month, accuser is complained to the accused on the spot, consume this commodity not actually, did not cause any harm to accuser. The product that offers from the accused is faced protect a record to also can see the accused is not know perfectly well run the food that does not accord with food safety standard. Accordingly, this case do not answer the regulation of applicable and decuple compensation. But the accused is put in fraudulent action really in this case, ought to the stipulates compensatory accuser gets loss of law of protection of applicable consumer rights and interests.
