One, what circumstance consumer can be obtained " false one compensate 3 " compensation?
According to the country industrial and commercial total bureau releases " con consumer behavior sanctions method " the 3rd regulation, when operator is offerring goods to consumer, have one of following cases, belong to con consumer behavior, consumer can advocate " 3 times compensation " :
(One) the sale is impure, adulterate, with pretend to be true, of shoddy goods;
(2) adopt false other perhaps shocking measure to make the commodity weight of the sale insufficient;
(3) sell " substandard goods " " incomplete defective goods " " off standard " wait for commodity and pretending is quality goods;
(4) with false " check inventory valence " " sale price " " minimum price " " preferential price " designation of price of sex of other perhaps deceit sells goods;
(5) with false commodity the means such as sample of standard of specification, commodity, objective sells goods;
(6) do not taste with oneself real name and mark distributors;
(7) the sale that takes the means such as service other people to undertake beguiling a gender is revulsive;
(8) do what false spot demonstrates and explain;
(9) use the mass communication agency such as broadcast, TV, film, the press to make false conduct propaganda to commodity;
(10) of diddle consumer imprest;
(11) use what mail-order sells diddle cost and be not offerred or do not taste according to stipulation provider;
(12) with false " sale having reward " " repayment of capital is sold " wait for means distributors to taste;
(13) with other and false wrong perhaps step the behavior of con consumer.
2, what circumstance consumer can be obtained " false one compensate 10 " compensation?
Basis " food safety law " the 148th regulation: "Consumer does not accord with the food of food safety standard to be damaged because of edible, can to loss of operator seek redress, OK also to loss of generator seek redress. Receive consumer to compensate for the manufacturing operator of the requirement, ought to execute head bear the blame make, compensate of go ahead of the rest pays, do not get shuffle; Attribute generator responsibility, the person that there is Quan Xiangsheng to produce after operator is compensated for chases after countervail; Attribute operator responsibility, there is authority to chase after countervail to operator after generator is compensated for. The food that production does not accord with food safety standard perhaps is managed knowing perfectly well is the food that does not accord with food safety standard, consumer eliminates seek redress loss outside, OK still to generator or operator asks to pay cost decuple or loss the compensation of 3 times; The amount that increases compensation is not worth 1000 yuan, it is 1000 yuan. But, existence of the label of food, manual does not affect food safety and the flaw exception that won't create misdirect to consumer. Existence of the label of food, manual does not affect food safety and the flaw exception that won't create misdirect to consumer..
Occupy the 150th additionally: "Food safety is to show food is avirulent, harmless, accord with ought to some nutrient requirements, do not cause any acute, subacute chronic perhaps harm to human body health. Do not cause any acute, subacute chronic perhaps harm to human body health..
Illustrate
? Case one:
On March 7, 2015, sun Mou in day cat store some brand shop bought seed of Ga of a few Ma piece, monovalent 528 yuan, amount 20, solid pay 4700 yuan. Bright burden carries on this product outer packing: Acid of Ma Ga pink, microcrystalline cellulose, tristearin is magnesian, product standard code name: Q/BLY0005S, food produces license number: QS530713010003. Because feel flavour is strange, the discovery after sift, essence of this Ma Ga piece product ingredient is narrated with the place that pack abhorrent, this product may belong to the food that does not accord with food safety standard, reason basis " food safety law " " standardize a way " regulation, to operator the view returns money and give by its pay 10 times compensation.
To prove its advocate, the answer opinion that Sun Mou offerred objective of order check scheme, product, photograph, Jiangsu to save sanitation and family planning committee, " additive agent for food of level of food safety state uses a level " wait for a data. The accused counterplea says generator obtained production to allow intelligence, issued the proof of the inspect feeding medicine of generator place, the product examines report, think to appeal to contend for a product to accord with food to produce a standard, do not have any harm the community is healthy the hidden trouble with life safety, the accused has used up obligation of strict examine and verify as distributors.
Forensic court decision:
Experience case product exceeds limits to use additive agent for food, disobeyed " law of safety of food of People's Republic of China " regulation. The accused sale is known perfectly well is the food that does not accord with food safety standard, ought to assume liability to pay compensation. According to " law of safety of food of People's Republic of China " (apply since June 1, 2009) the 19th, the 20th, the 25th, the 28th, thirtieth 9, the 96th the 2nd paragraph, " top people court about civil suit evidence a certain number of, the court decision is as follows:
The accused rises at adjudicating the day of become effective originally 10 return payment for goods of accuser Sun Mou in a few days 4700 yuan, compensate for accuser grandson some 47000 yuan, aggregate 51700 yuan.
? Case 2:
Accuser Jiang Xiaohua (alias) appeal to say, its bought Guizhou Maotai in department of some trade firm 10 box, add up to 60 bottles, single bottle price is 950 yuan, total prices is 57 thousand yuan. Hind appraisal of manufacturer of classics Guizhou Maotai, afore-mentioned Maotai are sham product. Jiang Xiaohua immediately appeals to the businessman to the court, the requirement is returned return shopping money 57 thousand yuan, ask 10 times compensation 570 thousand yuan, in addition still ask the businessman bears notarial cost.
Via the court cognizance is found out, jiang Xiaohua cooperates with notarization was in a staff member to buy Maotai in the accused place, in greffier testimony falls after, afore-mentioned Maotai that the member make a holiday of Guizhou Maotai buys to Jiang Xiaohua chase bottle to have identification, conclusion is " not be my company production (pack) " .
Argue of the accused criterion says, the person that business character estimates the responsibility that is generator and sale has nothing to do, notarial place is entrusted to undertake notarization before Jiang Xiaohua buys goods, and the to experience case commodity after buying did not undertake use sealing up for keeping directly, it is thus clear that its are not need in order to live to be a purpose, it is a purpose in order to seek profits however.
In this case, combine Jiang Xiaohua to find notarial place to deal with ahead of schedule conserve evidential notarization, notarial personnel cooperates with to buy the process of Maotai again after, reach the state of case of the claim for compensation after its have tens of removing additionally to buy goods, because this court buys experience case Maotai to Jiang Xiaohua,be the view that is a purpose with life consumption do not grant to approbate.
The court adjudicates 57 thousand yuan finally to the accused returns payment for goods, pay notarial cost 2500 yuan, reject accuser of 10 times claim for compensation appeal to beg.
The court thinks, " food safety law " establish " 10 times money paid for something purchased or received for something sold is compensated for " the original intention of the system is to make sure provision is safe, safeguard community is healthy with life safety, of establish is configuration of liability of a kind of tort. Accordingly, when consumer buys the food that does not accord with safe level, if this food had be notted cause to consumer,damage, belong to the off quality of the content of the mark in business contract, consumer can find out the responsibility of breach of contract of the person that sell only, request goods money paid for something purchased or received for something sold to wait for compensation to the person that sell.
And in this case, although the Maotai that accuser Jiang Xiaohua buys belongs to food, but because do not have evidence to prove this holiday wine is right accuser river Xiaohua is healthy caused damage, because evidence is insufficient,its requirement the accused pays reason the appeal of decuple compensation, the court does not grant to support. And the accused exists with pretend to be the behavior of true, shoddy con consumer, should be in " consumer rights and interests protects a law " inside limits of 3 times compensation, compensate for Jiang Xiaohua corresponding loss.
" food safety law " establish " decuple money paid for something purchased or received for something sold is compensated for " the original intention of the system is to make sure community of food safety, safeguard is healthy with life safety, the life health that the person that the purpose is produced through increasing opposite namely or the castigatory strength of the person that sell will come to to ensure social community is safe. Its property is liability of a kind of tort, if did not give person to cause harm circumstance to fall, belong to the off quality of the content of the mark in business contract, according to contract relativity principle, consumer can find out the responsibility of breach of contract of the person that sell only, cannot start decuple compensation.
