The source | Urban Scene Comprehensive Henan Zhengzhou Legal Newspaper
Please indicate all sources for reprinting
A small brine egg is only two yuan, but Mr. Bai in Zhengzhou, Henan Province, is more real, and actively defends his rights, and finally lost 47840 yuan because of the brine egg
On March 2, 2018, Mr. Bai of Zhengzhou purchased more than 130 copies of a brand of brine eggs on an online platform, a total of 16 boxes, with a total price of 4784 yuan, and wanted to give them as gifts to his relatives and friends.
After Mr. Bai received the goods, when looking through the packaging of the brine egg, he found that the ingredient list of the brine egg showed that it contained the additives sodium tripolyphosphate and red yeast red that should not be used in the brine egg, so he sued the production company of the brine egg to the Zhengzhou Jinshui District Court, requesting the defendant to return the purchase price of 4784 yuan and pay ten times the compensation of 47840 yuan in accordance with the law.
The Jinshui District Court of Zhengzhou City held a hearing on the case, and the plaintiff and the defendant had no objection to the fact that the products involved in the case could not use the food additives red yeast red and sodium tripolyphosphate.
Article 15 of China's Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Food and Drug Dispute Cases stipulates that where a consumer produces food that does not meet safety standards or sells food that knows that it does not meet food safety standards, and consumers claim to pay ten times the price of compensation to the producer or seller, or claim compensation in accordance with other compensation standards prescribed by law, the people's court shall support it.
In accordance with the provisions of the law, the Jinshui District Court upheld Mr. Bai's claim and ordered the defendant to return the plaintiff's shopping money of 4,784 yuan and compensate the plaintiff for 47,840 yuan. The defendant appealed against the first-instance judgment. The Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court upheld the original judgment in the second instance.
The judge reminds consumers that when purchasing food, they should pay attention to:
First, to see the qualifications, first of all, to see whether the food distributor has the "business license", "health permit" and the food sold inspection certificate and other relevant documents;
Second, to see the packaging, to see whether the packaging is damaged or leaky, whether the closed metal packaging is subject to the phenomenon of rising and bulging, whether the text and pattern printing of the packaging decoration are neat and clear, and whether there is a problem of counterfeiting well-known brand packaging;
Third, it depends on the validity period, whether the food is marked with the production date and shelf life, whether there are problems such as marking the production date in advance or altering or falsifying the production and shelf life;
Fourth, it is necessary to see whether the food packaging is marked with a health approval number, a production approval number, a food label approval number and other qualification approval numbers.