The claim for 15,000 yuan for yogurt worth 10.8 yuan is unreasonable (see the case for details). Unless the yogurt caused damage to your health, the specific situation needs to be determined based on the circumstances of your illness, such as medical expenses, lost wages, disability level, etc. The compensation will be less for minor injuries and more for serious injuries.
If consumers find problems with food, they can complain directly to the merchant, report to the functional department, etc., or break the news to relevant media. If the evidence you have is conclusive and has a legal basis, you can directly take legal channels to protect your rights if your complaint and report are fruitless. Article 8 of the "Food Safety Law" stipulates: News media should carry out public welfare publicity of food safety laws, regulations, food safety standards and knowledge, and conduct public opinion supervision of violations of this law. Article 10 stipulates: Any organization or individual has the right to report violations of this law in food production and operation, to obtain food safety information from relevant departments, and to provide opinions and suggestions on food safety supervision and management.
There are currently a variety of laws and regulations in my country that support consumers’ legal claims. One is the "Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law", which generally applies to false advertising and fraudulent business practices; the other is the "Food Safety Law", which mainly targets claims against the safety of food, health foods and drugs; and the "Tort Liability" Law". Article 2 of the Tort Liability Law stipulates: Anyone who infringes upon civil rights and interests shall bear tort liability in accordance with this law. The civil rights and interests mentioned in this Law include the right to life, health, name, reputation, honor, portrait, privacy, marital autonomy, custody, ownership, usufruct rights, security rights, copyrights, and patent rights. , trademark exclusive rights, discovery rights, equity, inheritance rights and other personal and property rights. Article 3 stipulates: The infringed party has the right to request the infringer to bear infringement liability.
So, how to determine whether the seller is "knowingly" at fault? Generally speaking, it can be judged from two aspects.
First, whether the seller has established purchase inspection records in accordance with the law during the purchase process and fulfilled its purchase inspection obligations. The "Food Safety Law" stipulates that food operators should establish food purchase inspection records, and sellers purchasing food should "truthfully record the name, specifications, quantity, production batch number, shelf life, supplier name and contact information, purchase date, etc. of the food content".
The second is whether the seller has fulfilled its duty of care during the sales process. During the sales process, sellers also "should store food in accordance with the requirements to ensure food safety, regularly inspect the food in stock, and promptly clean up food that has spoiled or has exceeded the shelf life."
For example, the supermarket in Case 2 failed to provide the court with purchase inspection records produced in accordance with the provisions of the Food Safety Law, nor could it prove that it fulfilled its duty of care, so it should bear the burden of proof.
Case 1
A supermarket was ordered to pay three times the compensation after buying "top quality fragrant rice"
A consumer in Xi'an, Shaanxi Province bought rice in a supermarket The words "Excellent Fragrant Rice" are printed on the outer packaging. Consumers believed that the promotional terms were misleading and deceptive, so they took the supermarket to court with a complaint. The first instance court ruled that the supermarket should refund the purchase price and provide compensation three times the purchase price. It is reported that this judgment is the first domestic judicial judgment based on Article 55 of the new Consumer Rights Protection Law since its implementation on March 15, 2014.
Mr. Sun, a consumer in Xi'an, said that he had purchased rice in a supermarket in Xi'an before and found that the "Imperial Fragrant Rice" he originally bought had basically unchanged packaging, and the price and grade were exactly the same. In this case, it suddenly turned into "the best fragrant rice". Mr. Sun believes that the word "top quality" misleads consumers, making them mistakenly believe that this kind of rice is of extremely high quality. Mr. Sun's review of relevant information showed that my country divides various types of rice into four grades, and there is no "best" grade. Mr. Sun believes that "the best fragrant rice" is an "absolute term" and violates the relevant provisions of the Advertising Law.
In order to safeguard his legitimate rights and interests, on June 19, 2014, Mr. Sun sued the supermarket to the People's Court of Beilin District, Xi'an City in accordance with Article 55 of the "Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law", requesting the return of the goods. The payment is 179.6 yuan and 3 times the compensation.
On July 22, the People’s Court of Beilin District, Xi’an City heard the case. The focus of the dispute in this case is whether the supermarket's sales of "high-quality fragrant rice" are fraudulent and whether it should be directly responsible for returning the purchase price and corresponding compensation.
The supermarket argued that they were a commodity retail company that purchased the brand of fragrant rice from suppliers and sold it directly. The goods were quality products produced by legal companies and they had done their best within reasonable limits Duty to review. The supermarket did not deliberately conceal or fabricate facts during the sales process, and there was no fraud.
The People's Court of Beilin District held that the fragrant rice sold in supermarkets was marked with the words "top quality fragrant rice" on the packaging, and the receipt was also marked with "top quality fragrant rice", and "top quality" was an absolute chemical terms and violates relevant legal provisions. The supermarket failed to strictly review the goods it sold, misled consumers, committed fraud, and should bear corresponding responsibilities. In addition, according to Article 40 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, after a supermarket assumes responsibility, it can seek compensation from the producer or other sellers. On September 1, 2014, the court ruled in the first instance that the supermarket should refund the consumer Mr. Sun’s rice purchase price of 179.6 yuan, and pay Mr. Sun a compensation of 538.80 yuan, three times the purchase price. Article 55 of the "Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law" stipulates: If an operator engages in fraudulent behavior in providing goods or services, it shall increase compensation for the losses suffered by the consumer at the request of the consumer. The amount of the increased compensation shall be the price of the consumer's purchase of the goods or Three times the cost of receiving services; if the amount of additional compensation is less than 500 yuan, it is 500 yuan. If the law provides otherwise, such provisions shall prevail.
The general principle of civil damage compensation is the compensation principle, that is, the amount of compensation is the amount of damage. However, in real life, some operators maliciously harm the rights and interests of consumers by resorting to fraud and other fraudulent behaviors. The filling-in principle cannot play its due role in punishing these illegal operators, and it cannot adequately compensate consumers for their actual losses. The new "Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law" raises the standards for punitive damages and adds huge impetus to encourage consumers to fight against operators' fraudulent practices.
Case 2
A large supermarket was heavily fined for selling expired food if it was 10 days overdue He bought a box of expired food and took the supermarket to court, asking for 10 times the compensation.
On June 17, 2013, Yin bought a box of Taohuaji donkey-hide gelatin cake at a supermarket in Hanyang, Wuhan City, for 251 yuan. After Yin left the supermarket, he discovered that the Taohuaji donkey-hide gelatin cake he purchased had a production date of August 7, 2012 and a shelf life of 10 months. The box of food had expired for 10 days, so he requested a return from the supermarket, but the negotiation between the two parties failed. .
On the same day, Yin appealed to the Hanyang Branch of the Wuhan Administration for Industry and Commerce, requesting a return and 10 times compensation in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Food Safety Law, but the mediation failed.
In this case, Yin sued the court.
The court of first instance held that: Whether the Taohuaji donkey-hide gelatin cake on which Yin filed the lawsuit was the product sold in the supermarket at that time was the main focus of the case. Yin provided the physical goods and shopping invoices, but the supermarket did not submit evidence of purchases during the same period, proving that the donkey-hide gelatin cakes it sold were not the same batch of products as the donkey-hide gelatin cakes provided by Yin, and the supermarket should bear the burden of proof. As a large supermarket, the supermarket should have a complete video surveillance system, which can assist in proving the authenticity of Yin's food purchase behavior, but the supermarket failed to provide it. Although the supermarket can prove that the registered delivery unit of the product is Guanxian Yimin, it cannot prove that the supermarket did not purchase the product. Therefore, it was determined that the supermarket was selling expired food. According to the "Food Safety Law", the supermarket was ordered to refund Yin's payment of 251 yuan, compensate Yin for 10 times the price of 2,510 yuan, and compensate Yin for transportation expenses of 500 yuan.
The supermarket was dissatisfied and appealed, claiming that the products it sold had only exceeded the shelf life and did not violate food safety standards.
Whether the product has quality problems should be identified by relevant professional departments, but Yin did not provide any evidence to prove that the product involved did not meet food safety standards; and the seller did not intentionally do so subjectively, but there was no time to sort out the expired goods in the future. At most, it was just negligence, and no actual damage was caused to Yin. Therefore, 10 times the compensation should not be paid to Yin based on the Food Safety Law.
The court of second instance rejected his appeal and upheld the original judgment. He should be fined 10 times the amount of compensation for selling food that he knew was expired. Article 96 of my country’s Food Safety Law stipulates that if food is produced that does not meet food safety standards or food that is knowingly sold does not meet food safety standards, in addition to claiming compensation for losses, consumers may also demand compensation from the producer or seller. Pay compensation 10 times the price.
Compared with the compensation principle for fraud determined by the "Consumer Rights Protection Law", this provision of the "Food Safety Law" reflects the punishment for the production and sale of food that does not meet food safety standards. Severity. However, precisely because the penalty of 10 times compensation is relatively strict, the Food Safety Law stipulates a subjective requirement for sellers to pay 10 times compensation: knowing knowledge, that is, only when the seller knows that the food does not meet safety standards but still sells it, Only consumers have the right to demand 10 times compensation from the seller.