The court found the problem of 90000 tea packaging

The court found that there was a problem with the packaging of 90000 tea, which was found to be "fraud"

release date: Source: Yangzi Evening News Editor: Yu Jia browsing times: 4063 copyright and disclaimer

core tip: Rugao citizens Li and Yu spent 91000 yuan to buy 350 boxes of Pu'er tea in a tea self-supporting store at Jingdong shopping station, but found that the production license numbers on the front and back of the packaging were inconsistent. After investigation, One license number is owned by other tea factories, and the other license number does not exist. A few days ago, Rugao people's court made a first instance judgment on this case of shopping contract dispute. The defendant, a tea trading company in Shanghai, refunded 91000 yuan of the purchase price and compensated 273000 yuan for three times the loss

[China Packaging News] after spending 90000 yuan to buy tea, the packaging found a problem

the positive and negative production licenses were not right. The court found that it was "fraud"

Li and Yu, citizens of Rugao, spent 91000 yuan to buy 350 boxes of Pu'er tea in a tea self-supporting store in Jingdong shopping station, but found that the production license numbers on the positive and negative sides of the packaging were inconsistent. After investigation, one of the license numbers was owned by other tea factories, Another license number does not exist. A few days ago, Rugao people's court made a first instance judgment on this case of shopping contract dispute. The defendant, a tea trading company in Shanghai, refunded 91000 yuan of the purchase price and compensated 273000 yuan for three times the loss

in March last year, Li and Yu jointly invested and purchased 350 boxes of Pu'er tea sold by a tea trading company in Shanghai in the name of Li from the self operated store of Jingdong shopping station, with a unit price of 260 yuan, a total of 91000 yuan. After receiving the goods, Li and Yu accidentally found that the internal packaging paper of the goods was marked with the production license number "qs532********" on the front and "qs530********" on the back. At the same time, the production date is marked as March 8th, 2008. After investigation, the food production license number with the positive number of "qs532********" does not exist, and the food production license number with the negative number of "qs530********" is actually owned by another tea factory in Yunnan

Li and Yu believed that the products involved had forged production dates, production licenses and other issues, in violation of the prohibitive provisions of the food safety law. A petition brought the company and JD mall to the court, requesting the tea company to return 91000 yuan of goods and 10 times compensation, and requesting JD mall to bear joint and several liabilities

during the trial, Yunnan yunce Quality Inspection Co., Ltd. issued a report that the tested sample was Pu'er tea, and the sample production date was June 18, 2008. In this regard, the tea company only orally defended the case and showed a ductile fracture. The tea involved was Mr. Wang's postpartum packaging, but it failed to provide evidence to explain the reasons for the inconsistency of the production licenses of the goods involved in the case

Rugao court held that according to the evidence, it could not be found that Pu'er tea involved in the case did not meet the food safety standards, so the punitive compensation provisions of the food safety law were not applicable, but the defendant failed to make a reasonable interpretation of the inconsistency between the labels of the two production licenses of Pu'er tea involved in the case, and failed to prove the authenticity of the production date marked on the goods involved in the case, which was in line with the "fraud" stipulated in the consumer protection law, There are many closed holes in these materials, which are enough to mislead consumers and should bear three times the compensation. After compensation, the defendant has the right to recover from the tea producer or other seller involved in the case

from the evidence, JD mall has conducted the necessary review of the information provided by the seller, provided accurate information about the merchants and manufacturers of the goods involved in the case, and removed the goods involved from the shelves, so it does not need to bear joint and several compensation. In conclusion, the court made the above judgment

Yao Jianhua, the judge in charge of the case, said that Articles 8 and 20 of the consumer rights and interests protection law stipulate that consumers have the right to know the true situation of their purchase and use of anti-corrosion goods or services when necessary. Business operators shall provide consumers with true and comprehensive information about the quality, performance, purpose and expiration date of commodities or services, and shall not make false or misleading publicity