Selling expired food, 10 times compensation is not enough!

2022-05-13 0 By

In recent years, the Pukou Court has always given priority to the protection of consumers’ rights and interests, insisted on protecting consumers’ legitimate rights and interests in accordance with the law, and maintained the consumption order of honesty, friendship and fair trade.Today is “March 15” International Consumer Rights Day. In order to create a good market consumption environment and better protect the rights and interests of consumers, the Pukou Court has introduced some knowledge about consumer rights and interests through a case of dispute over the responsibility of product sellers.On December 20, 2019, the plaintiff Xu bought a packet of radish pickles at 20.90 yuan in a supermarket of the defendant in Nanjing.After the plaintiff found that the radish pickle has exceeded the shelf life, find the defendant.The defendant did not agree to compensation on the ground that the package had been opened.The plaintiff called 12315 again, but it was still unresolved.The plaintiff provided the shopping receipts and screenshots of 8.60 yuan of them transferred through Alipay. He also provided the physical radish kimchi, which was printed on its packaging with a production date of September 16, 2019 and a shelf life of three months.The plaintiff petitioned the defendant to return 20.9 yuan of shopping money and compensate the plaintiff for the loss of 1000 yuan.The defendant argues that the goods provided by the plaintiff cannot be proved to be purchased from the defendant, and the plaintiff has insufficient evidence, so he requests the court to reject the plaintiff’s lawsuit request.The court holds that the evidence provided by the plaintiff can prove that the plaintiff purchased the articles involved in the case from the defendant, and the two parties establish a sales contract relationship.According to Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, a party has the obligation to provide evidence for his claims.The defendant argued that he had sold the goods and denied that the goods in question provided by the plaintiff were purchased from the defendant.If the defendant fails to provide evidence to prove his point of view regarding the evidence provided by the plaintiff to purchase the commodities involved in the case, the defendant shall bear the adverse legal consequences.According to Article 34 of the Food Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China, “The production and marketing of the following foods, food additives and food-related products shall be prohibited:(10) Food or food additives with a false production date or shelf life marked or beyond the shelf life “, Article 148: “Where a consumer suffers damage from a food that does not meet the food safety standards, he may claim compensation from the business operator or from the producer.Producers and business operators that receive claims for compensation from consumers shall carry out the responsibility system first and pay compensation first without evading responsibility.Where the producer is responsible, the operator shall have the right of recourse against the producer after making compensation.If the fault is the responsibility of the operator, the producer shall have the right to recover from the operator after making compensation.Where a consumer produces food that does not meet the food safety standards or knowingly deals in food that does not meet the food safety standards, in addition to demanding compensation for losses, he may also demand compensation of ten times the price or three times the loss from the producer or operator;If the amount of increased compensation is less than 1,000 yuan, it shall be 1,000 yuan.However, the food label, instruction shall not affect the food safety and the drawbacks of not to mislead consumers except “regulation, in this case, the supermarket sales case involving radish pickle over shelf life, violated the law, the plaintiff requires the defendant to refund the payment of 20.90 yuan, and 1000 yuan’s claim for compensation with the facts and legal basis,Be supportive.The court judgment according to “Food Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China” article 34, article 148, “Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China” article 64 provisions, the judgment is as follows: one, the defendant in Nanjing a supermarket within five days from the effective date of this judgment to refund the plaintiff Xu radish pickle payment 20.90 yuan;Ii. The defendant of a supermarket in Nanjing shall pay the plaintiff Xu 1,000 yuan in compensation within five days from the effective date of this judgment.If the party fails to perform the pecuniary payment obligation within the period specified in this judgment, it shall, in accordance with the provisions of Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, pay double the interest on the debt for the delayed performance period.The judge argued that consumers’ rights protection must keep relevant invoices, contracts and other credentials of the products they purchased as evidence of the source of purchase, so as to prevent sellers or producers from refusing to recognize their sales or production relations because they have no relevant credentials.We hope that the general public can effectively protect their legitimate rights and interests in accordance with the law, but also hope that business operators operate in good faith in accordance with the law, and jointly promote the healthy development of the consumer market.Disclaimer: This article is reproduced for the purpose of conveying more information.If the source is wrong or violated your legitimate rights and interests, please contact the author with proof of ownership, we will promptly correct, delete, thank you.Email address: