|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
Trial of Five Typical Cases on Food and Pharmaceutical Product Dispute Issued by the Supreme People's Court | | 最高人民法院公布五起审理食品药品纠纷典型案例 |
| (January 9, 2014) | | （2014年1月9日） |
| Case No. 1 | | 案例1 |
| Sun Yinshan v. Jiangning Store of Nanjing Auchan Supermarket Co., Ltd. (Sales contract dispute) | | 孙银山诉南京欧尚超市有限公司江宁店买卖合同纠纷案 |
| 1. Basic Facts | | （一）基本案情 |
| On May 1, 2012, Plaintiff Sun Yinshan purchased 15 bags of “Yutu” sausage from Defendant Jiangning Store of Auchan Supermarket Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Auchan Supermarket”) and the warranty period of 14 bags of sausage valued at 558.6 yuan has expired (which was known by the Plaintiff). After having paid the bill at the checkout counter, Sun Yinshan went straight to the service counter to claim for compensation. Since negotiation failed, Sun Yinshan brought a lawsuit in the People's Court of Jiangning District, Nanjing City and required Auchan Supermarket to compensate him 5,586 yuan, which was ten times of the money he paid. | | 2012年5月1日，原告孙银山在被告欧尚超市有限公司江宁店（以下简称欧尚超市）购买“玉兔牌”香肠15包，其中价值558.6元的14包香肠已过保质期（原告明知）。孙银山到收银台结账后，又径直到服务台进行索赔。因协商未果，孙银山诉至南京市江宁区人民法院，要求欧尚超市支付售价十倍的赔偿金5586元。 |
| 2. Judgment | | （二）裁判结果 |
| The court held that: In accordance with Article 2 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests, “The rights and interests of consumers purchasing and using commodities or receiving services for daily consumption shall be protected by this Law; or be protected by other applicable laws and regulations if this Law is silent.” In this case, Sun Yinshan carried out the act of purchasing commodities; Auchan Supermarket did not provide evidence to prove that Plaintiff Sun Yinshan's purchase of commodities was for production and sales activities; and Sun's claim for compensation for his purchase of food beyond the warranty period was an exercise of statutory rights. Therefore, the defense of Auchan Supermarket that Sun Yinshan was not a consumer was untenable. | | 法院认为，消费者权益保护法第2条规定：“消费者为生活消费需要购买、使用商品或者接受服务，其权益受本法保护；本法未作规定的，受其他有关法律、法规保护。”本案中，孙银山实施了购买商品的行为，欧尚超市未提供证据证明其购买商品是用于生产销售，并且原告孙银山因购买到过期食品而要求索赔，属于行使法定权利。因此欧尚超市认为孙银山不是消费者的抗辩理由不能成立。 |
| A food seller has the statutory obligation of guaranteeing food safety and should sort out food that fails to conform to the safety standards and remove them off shelves in a timely manner. However, Auchan Supermarket still sold sausage that exceeded the warranty period, which was an act of failing to perform its statutory obligation. It should be determined that Auchan Supermarket knowingly sold food that did not conform to the food safety standards. Under this circumstance, a consumer may claim for both the compensation for damages and the compensation ten times of the money paid, or may only claim for the compensation ten times of the money paid. Sun Yinshan required Auchan Supermarket to pay compensation ten times of the money paid, which was an act of disposal of his own rights and should be upheld. In accordance with Article 96 of the Food Safety Law, Defendant Auchan Supermarket was ordered to pay Plaintiff Sun Yinshan compensation of 5,586 yuan. This judgment has come into force. | | 食品销售者负有保证食品安全的法定义务，应当对不符合安全标准的食品及时清理下架。但欧尚超市仍然销售超过保质期的香肠，系不履行法定义务的行为，应当被认定为销售明知是不符合食品安全标准的食品。在此情况下，消费者可以同时主张赔偿损失和价款十倍的赔偿金，也可以只主张价款10倍的赔偿金。孙银山要求欧尚超市支付售价10倍的赔偿金，属于当事人自行处分权利的行为，应予支持。根据食品安全法第96条的规定，判决被告欧尚超市支付原告孙银山赔偿金5586元。现该判决已发生法律效力。 |
| Case No. 2 | | 案例2 |
| Hua Yan v. No. 26 Branch of Beijing Tianchao Warehouse Supermarket Co., Ltd. and Beijing Tianchao Warehouse Supermarket Co., Ltd. (Dispute over personal rights) | | 华燕诉北京天超仓储超市有限责任公司第二十六分公司、北京天超仓储超市有限责任公司人身权益纠纷案 |
| 1. Basic Facts | | （一）基本案情 |
| On May 6, 2009, Plaintiff Hua Yan purchased haw slices twice from Defendant No. 26 Branch of Beijing Tianchao Warehouse Supermarket Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “No. 26 Branch”) and paid 10 yuan and 6.55 yuan respectively (for the purpose of obtaining evidence). When eating such haw slices, her molar tooth was cracked by a haw seed in the haw slices. On the same day, Hua Yan went to hospital and had the damaged molar tooth extracted. Hua Yan paid 421.87 yuan for tooth extraction and treatment, 4,810 yuan for inserting an artificial tooth, 6.4 yuan for travel expense, and 15.8 yuan for photocopying. Afterwards, she went to No. 26 Branch for dealing with this incident, but she was rejected. Hua Yan then made a telephone complaint by dialing 12315 and no consensus reached upon mediation organized by the Tuanjiehu Branch of the Consumers' Association of Chaoyang District, Beijing Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the “Tuanjiehu Consumers' Association”). Hua Yan therefore brought an action in the People's Court of Chaoyang District, Beijing Municipality and claimed that the Defendant should compensate her 421.87 yuan for tooth extraction and treatment, 4,810 yuan for inserting an artificial tooth, 6.4 yuan for travel expenses, 15.8 yuan for photocopying, 17 yuan for the money paid for purchase of haw slices and 100 yuan for compensation ten times of the money paid for the initial purchase of haw slices in a total of 117 yuan, and 8,000 yuan in compensation for mental distress. The Tuanjiehu Consumers' Association issued remarks to the court and proved that there were flaws in the haw slices purchased by Hua Yan even in intact packages. In trial, Beijing Tianchao Warehouse Supermarket Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Tianchao Company”) provided the joint sales contract, the relevant licenses of the manufacturer of haw slices, and the inspection report on haw slices to prove that the haw slices it sold satisfied the product quality requirements. Upon investigation by the court, it was found that before the occurrence of the incident involved in this case, Hua Yan once went to hospital for treatment of the same tooth, and upon treatment, the wall of this tooth became thin and was vulnerable to damage by external force. | | 2009年5月6日，原告华燕两次到被告北京天超仓储超市有限责任公司第二十六分公司（以下简称二十六分公司）处购买山楂片，分别付款10元和6.55元（为取证），在食用时山楂片中的山楂核将其槽牙崩裂。当日，华燕到医院就诊，将受损的槽牙拔除。为此，华燕共支付拔牙及治疗费421.87元，镶牙费4810元，交通费6.4元、复印费15.8元。后华燕找二十六分公司协商处理此事时，遭到对方拒绝。华燕后拨打12315进行电话投诉，经北京市朝阳区消费者协会团结湖分会（以下简称团结湖消协）组织调解，未达成一致意见。遂向北京市朝阳区人民法院起诉，要求被告赔偿拔牙及治疗费421.87元，镶牙费4810元，交通费6.4元、复印费15.8元，购物价款17元及初次购物价款10倍赔偿费共计117元，精神损害抚慰金8000元。团结湖消协向法院出具说明，证明华燕所购山楂片从包装完整的情况下即可看出存在瑕疵。案件审理中，北京天超仓储超市有限责任公司（以下简称天超公司）提供了联销合同及山楂片生产者的相关证照及山楂片的检验报告等，证明其销售的山楂片符合产品质量要求。经法院调查，华燕在本案事实发生前，曾因同一颗牙齿的问题到医院就诊，经治疗该牙齿壁变薄，容易遭受外力伤害。 |
| 2. Judgment | | （二）裁判结果 |
| In the trial of second instance, the No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Beijing Municipality held that: According to the safety and health standards of the state for candied fruit products, soft haw slices should be free of any impurity. There were haw seeds with high hardness in the haw slices sold by Tianchao Company and such haw slices did not conform to the relevant food safety and health standards of the state. Therefore, it should be determined that such haw slices had food quality flaws. The seller of substandard food should assume full liabilities for injuries arising from its sale of such substandard food. The wall of Hua Yan's tooth was thin; however, she had no fault in the occurrence of the injury in this case and the liabilities of the tortfeasor were not therefore mitigated. According to the remarks issued by the Tuanjiehu Consumers' Association, defect of the haw slices could be identified even in intact packages. Therefore, the product seller has sold products when it knew such food had safety problems and it should pay the consumer compensation ten times of the money the consumer has paid. Since the mental distress suffered by Hua Yan was not serious, her claim for compensation for mental distress shall not be upheld in accordance with law. In view of the above, in accordance with Article 96 of the Food Safety Law, the court rendered a judgment that Tianchao Company should pay Hua Yan 5,231.87 yuan for medical treatment, 6.4 yuan for travel expenses, and 116.55 yuan for refund and compensation ten times of the money Hua Yan paid. | | 北京市第二中级人民法院二审认为，根据国家对蜜饯产品的安全卫生标准，软质山楂片内应是无杂质的。天超公司销售的山楂片中含有硬度很高的山楂核，不符合国家规定的相关食品安全卫生标准，应认定存在食品质量瑕疵，不合格食品的销售者对其销售的不合格食品所带来的损害后果，应承担全部责任。华燕自身牙齿牙壁较薄，但对于本案损害的发生并无过错，侵权人的责任并不因而减轻。从团结湖消协出具的情况说明来看，该山楂片所存在的瑕疵是在外包装完整的情况下即可发现的，因此，产品销售商是在应当知道该食品存在安全问题的情况下销售该产品，应向消费者支付价款十倍的赔偿金。鉴于华燕因此遭受的精神损害并不严重，对其要求赔偿精神损失的主张，依法不予支持。据此，该院依照食品安全法第96条的规定，判决天超公司向华燕赔偿医疗费5231.87元、交通费6.4元、退货价款及支付价款十倍赔偿116.55元。 |
| Case No. 3 | | 案例3 |
| Pi Minmin v. Chongqing Far Eastern Department Stores Co., Ltd., Chongqing Wuling Mushrooms Greenking Food Development Co., Ltd., and et al. (Product liability dispute) | | 皮旻旻诉重庆远东百货有限公司、重庆市武陵山珍王食品开发有限公司等产品责任纠纷案 |
| 1. Basic Facts | | （一）基本案情 |
On May 5, 2012, Pi Minmin purchased ten boxes of “Wuling Mushrooms Family Feast Soup” produced by Chongqing Wuling Mushrooms Greenking Food Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Mushrooms Company”) at Chongqing Far Eastern Department Stores Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Far Eastern Company”) at the price of 448 yuan per box and paid a total of 4,480 yuan. There were a number of pre-packed food in each box of “Wuling Mushrooms Family Feast Soup,” which included matsutake, boletus edulis, chanterelle, mushroom slices, swollen-stalked catathelasma, agrocybe cylindracea, blue bar fungus, stropharia, and Eastern Magic Soup package. Such content as storage methods, recipe, edible methods, net weight, product executive standards, production license, production date, warranty period, as well as address and telephone of the manufacturer were indicated on the external package of each box of “Wuling Mushrooms Family Feast Soup”; however, no raw ingredients were indicated on the package of “Eastern Magic Soup” Package. Mushrooms Company once took Q/LW7-2007 as its enterprise production standards. After the expiration of the standards, it failed to extend them in a timely manner due to various reasons and it still continued to use Q/LW7-2007 as its enterprise production standards and indicated them on the package of its products. In September 2012, it submitted a statement on the expiration of its enterprise production standards to the Quality and Technical Supervision Bureau of Shizhu Tujia Autonomous County of Chongqing Municipality; and in October 2012, it issued and used the product standards of Q/LW0005S-2012 upon recordation with the Chongqing Municipal Health Bureau. Pi Minmin maintained that the food he purchased was substandard and therefore he brought a lawsuit in the People's Court of Jiangbei District, Chongqing Municipality, and requested the court to order that Far Eastern Company should refund 4,480 yuan, the money he has paid, and Mushrooms Company should assume five times of compensation liabilities, 22,400 yuan in total.
．．．．．． | | 2012年5月5日，皮旻旻在重庆远东百货有限公司（以下简称远东公司）购买了由重庆市武陵山珍王食品开发有限公司（以下简称山珍公司）生产的“武陵山珍家宴煲”10盒，每盒单价448元，共计支付价款4480元。每盒“武陵山珍家宴煲”里面有若干独立的预包装食品，分别为松茸、美味牛肝、黄牛肝、香菇片、老人头、茶树菇、青杠菌、球盖菌、东方魔汤料包等。每盒“武陵山珍家宴煲”产品的外包装上标注了储存方法、配方、食用方法、净含量、产品执行标准、生产许可证、生产日期、保质期以及生产厂家的地址、电话等内容，但东方魔汤料包上没有标示原始配料。山珍公司原以Q/LW7-2007标准作为企业的生产标准，该标准过期后由于种种原因未能及时对标准进行延续，且该企业仍继续在包装上标注Q/LW7-2007作为企业的产品生产标准，该企业于2012年9月向重庆市石柱土家族自治县质量技术监督局提交了企业标准过期的情况说明，于2012年10月向重庆市卫生局备案后发布了当前使用产品标准Q/LW0005S-2012。皮旻旻认为其所购食品不合格，遂向重庆市江北区人民法院起诉，请求判令远东公司退还货款4480元，判令山珍公司承担5倍赔偿责任共计22400元。
．．．．．． |
|
Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.
1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.
2. Binding to the account with access to this database.
3. Apply for a trial account.
4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【￥600.00】 for your single purchase. | |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户；您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买，支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content
found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright
owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.
Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations
of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language
versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly
or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.
We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve
the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
|
|
|
|
|
|