>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
No. 1 of Ten Model Cases Involving the Protection of Consumer Rights Issued by the Supreme People's Court, and White Paper No. 1 of Status of the Safeguarding of Consumer Rights by the People's Courts (2010-2013) Issued by the Supreme People's Cour: Meng Jian v. Guangzhou Jianmin Pharmacy Chain Co., Ltd., Hainan Yangshengtang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Hangzhou Yangshengtang Dietary Supplements Co., Ltd. (Product liability dispute)
最高人民法院公布10起维护消费者权益典型案例之一、最高法院发布《2010-2013年人民法院维护消费者权益状况》白皮书之一:孟健诉广州健民医药连锁有限公司、海南养生堂药业有限公司、杭州养生堂保健品有限责任公司产品责任纠纷案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: Civil-->Tort
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Procedural status: Trial at Second Instance
*尊敬的用户,您好!本篇仅为该案例的英文摘要。北大法宝提供单独的翻译服务,如需整篇翻译,请发邮件至database@chinalawinfo.com,或致电86 (10) 8268-9699进行咨询。
*Dear user, this document contains only a summary of the respective judicial case. To request a full-text translation as an additional service, please contact us at:  + 86 (10) 8268-9699 database@chinalawinfo.com

No. 1 of Ten Model Cases Involving the Protection of Consumer Rights Issued by the Supreme People's Court, and White Paper No. 1 of Status of the Safeguarding of Consumer Rights by the People's Courts (2010-2013) Issued by the Supreme People's Cour: Meng Jian v. Guangzhou Jianmin Pharmacy Chain Co., Ltd., Hainan Yangshengtang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Hangzhou Yangshengtang Dietary Supplements Co., Ltd. (Product liability dispute)
(Product liability dispute)
最高人民法院公布10起维护消费者权益典型案例之一、最高法院发布《2010-2013年人民法院维护消费者权益状况》白皮书之一:孟健诉广州健民医药连锁有限公司、海南养生堂药业有限公司、杭州养生堂保健品有限责任公司产品责任纠纷案
[Key Terms]
producer ; consumer ; tenfold compensation
[核心术语]
生产者;消费者;十倍赔偿
[Disputed Issues]
Where the producer uses additives in its health supplements in violation of rules, may consumers claim for compensation tenfold the price?
[争议焦点]
生产者在保健食品中违规使用添加剂,消费者能否要求支付价款十倍的赔偿金?
[Case Summary]
Food additive refers to the artificial or natural substances which are used in food in order to improve the quality, appearance, flavor or taste of the food or for the purpose of anti-rot, fresh-keeping or processing. The use of additives by the producer in the health supplement in violation of rules does not comply with the food safety standard and the health supplement containing illegal additives is unsafe food. Under Article 96 of the Food Safety Law, a consumer may require a producer producing the food failing to meet the food safety standard or a trader knowingly selling the food failing to meet the food safety standard to pay compensation tenfold the price, in addition to claiming for damage. Hence, consumers may claim for compensation tenfold the price.
[案例要旨]
食品添加剂,指为改善食品品质和色、香、味以及为防腐、保鲜和加工工艺的需要而加入食品中的人工合成或者天然物质。生产者在保健食品中违规使用添加剂的行为不符合食品安全标准,违规使用了添加剂的保健食品属于不安全食品,根据《食品安全法》第九十六条“生产不符合食品安全标准的食品或者销售明知是不符合食品安全标准的食品,消费者除要求赔偿损失外,还可以向生产者或者销售者要求支付价款十倍的赔偿金。”的规定,消费者可以向生产者或销售者要求支付价款十倍的赔偿金。
No. 1 of Ten Model Cases Involving the Protection of Consumer Rights Issued by the Supreme People's Court, and White Paper No. 1 of Status of the Safeguarding of Consumer Rights by the People's Courts (2010-2013) Issued by the Supreme People's Cour: Meng Jian v. Guangzhou Jianmin Pharmacy Chain Co., Ltd., Hainan Yangshengtang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Hangzhou Yangshengtang Dietary Supplements Co., Ltd. (Product liability dispute) 

最高人民法院公布10起维护消费者权益典型案例之一、最高法院发布《2010-2013年人民法院维护消费者权益状况》白皮书之一:孟健诉广州健民医药连锁有限公司、海南养生堂药业有限公司、杭州养生堂保健品有限责任公司产品责任纠纷案

—Dietary supplements illegally using additives are unsafe food, and consumers are entitled to damages in the amount of ten times the price paid. 

--违规使用添加剂的保健食品属于不安全食品,消费者有权请求价款十倍赔偿
1. Basic Facts (一)基本案情
On July 27 and 28, 2012, Meng Jiang purchased seven cases of “Yangshengtang Collagen Powder” with the production dates of September 28, 2011, and November 5, 2011, manufactured by Hangzhou Yangshengtang Dietary Supplements Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Hangzhou Yangshengtang”) under the supervision of Hainan Yangshengtang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Hainan Yangshengtang”), from Guangzhou Jianmin Pharmacy Chain Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Jianmin Company”), with a total price of 1,736 yuan. As stated on the outside of packages of all the products, the product standard code was Q/YST0011S and the ingredients included “food additives (D-Mannitol and citric acid).” All the parties involved agreed that the product involved was ordinary food, the food additive D-Mannitol in the ingredients was a misuse of food additives beyond the permitted scope, and the product involved did not meet the national food safety standards. After his claim for compensation from the food producer and dealer failed, Meng Jian filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Yuexiu District, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, claiming that Hainan Yangshengtang, Hangzhou Yangshengtang, and Jianmin Company should refund to him the price paid of 1,736 yuan and pay him damages in the amount of 17,360 yuan, ten times the price paid. 2012年7月27日、28日,孟健分别在广州健民医药连锁有限公司(以下简称健民公司)购得海南养生堂药业有限公司(以下简称海南养生堂公司)监制、杭州养生堂保健品有限责任公司(以下简称杭州养生堂公司)生产的“养生堂胶原蛋白粉”共7盒合计1736元,生产日期分别为2011年9月28日、2011年11月5日。产品外包装均显示产品标准号:Q/YST0011S,配料包括“食品添加剂(D-甘露糖醇、柠檬酸)”。各方当事人均确认涉案产品为普通食品,成分含有食品添加剂D-甘露糖醇,属于超范围滥用食品添加剂,不符合食品安全国家标准。孟健因向食品经营者索赔未果,遂向广东省广州市越秀区人民法院起诉,请求海南养生堂公司、杭州养生堂公司、健民公司退还货款1736元,十倍赔偿货款17360元。
2. Judgment北大法宝,版权所有 (二)裁判结果
In its judgment, the court of first instance decided that Hangzhou Yangshengtang should refund to Meng Jian the price paid of 1,736 yuan and Hainan Yangshengtang should assume joint and several liability for it. Meng Jian appealed the judgment to the Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou City. 一审法院判决杭州养生堂公司退还孟健所付价款1736元,海南养生堂公司对上述款项承担连带责任。孟健不服该判决,向广州市中级人民法院提起上诉。
After trial, the court of second instance held that: First, the focal dispute of the parties in this case was whether the additive D-Mannitol in the product involved conformed to the food safety standards. The product involved was a solid drink rather than candy, and the use of D-Mannitol was only permitted in candies. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions on the use of food additives, Yangshengtang Company's adding of D-Mannitol in the product involved did not conform to the food safety standards. The evidence provided by Hangzhou Yangshengtang failed to support its argument. Second, as for whether the provision on “ten times” damages in Article 96好饿但是不想动 of the Food Safety Law was applicable to this case, because the act of adding D-Mannitol to the product involved in this case did not conform to the food safety standards, consumers may claim damages of tem times the price paid from the manufacturer or vendor in accordance with this provision. At the trial upon appeal, as Meng Jian clearly required only Hainan Yangshengtang and Hangzhou Yangshengtang to be held liable, Hainan Yangshengtang and Hangzhou Yangshengtang should pay damages of ten times the price paid for the product involved to Meng Jian. In its judgment, the court of second instance decided that Hangzhou Yangshengtang should pay damages of 17,360 yuan to Meng Jian and Hainan Yangshengtang should assume joint and several liability for it. 二审法院经审理认为,第一,本案当事人的争议焦点在于涉案产品中添加D-甘露糖醇是否符合食品安全标准的规定。涉案产品属于固体饮料,并非属于糖果,而D-甘露糖醇允许使用的范围是限定于糖果,因此根据食品添加剂的使用规定,养生堂公司在涉案产品中添加D-甘露糖醇不符合食品安全标准的规定。杭州养生堂公司提供的证据不能支持其主张。第二,关于本案是否可适用《食品安全法北大法宝》第96条关于十倍赔偿的规定。本案中,由于涉案产品添加D-甘露糖醇的行为不符合食品安全标准,因此,消费者可以依照该条规定,向生产者或销售者要求支付价款十倍的赔偿金。孟健在二审中明确只要求海南养生堂公司和杭州养生堂公司承担责任,海南养生堂公司和杭州养生堂公司应向孟健支付涉案产品价款十倍赔偿金。二审法院判决杭州养生堂公司向孟健支付赔偿金17360元,海南养生堂公司对此承担连带责任。
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  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.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese