>>>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. 2 of Ten Model Cases Involving the Protection of Consumer Rights Issued by the Supreme People's Court, White Paper No. 2 of Status of the Safeguarding of Consumer Rights by the People's Courts (2010-2013) Issued by the Supreme People's Cour: Zhao Xiaohong v. Beijing Panam Furniture Co., Ltd. (Sales contract dispute)
最高人民法院公布10起维护消费者权益典型案例之二、最高法院发布《2010-2013年人民法院维护消费者权益状况》白皮书之二:赵晓红与北京泛美卓越家具有限责任公司买卖合同纠纷案
【法宝引证码】
*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info@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 info@chinalawinfo.com

No. 2 of Ten Model Cases Involving the Protection of Consumer Rights Issued by the Supreme People's Court, White Paper No. 2 of Status of the Safeguarding of Consumer Rights by the People's Courts (2010-2013) Issued by the Supreme People's Cour: Zhao Xiaohong v. Beijing Panam Furniture Co., Ltd. (Sales contract dispute)
(Sales contract dispute)
最高人民法院公布10起维护消费者权益典型案例之二、最高法院发布《2010-2013年人民法院维护消费者权益状况》白皮书之二:赵晓红与北京泛美卓越家具有限责任公司买卖合同纠纷案
[Key Terms]
false propaganda ; fraud ; additional indemnification
[核心术语]
虚假宣传;欺诈行为;额外赔偿
[Disputed Issues]
1. Can a consumer be supported by a people's court, if she requests for the return of the paid price and an additional indemnification equal to one time of such a price as an operator defrauds in its propaganda?
[争议焦点]
经营者存在虚假宣传行为,消费者要求退还价款,并额外赔偿相当于价款一倍的金额,能否获得法院支持?
[Case Summary]
Operators shall provide true information on goods or services to consumers, and shall not make any misleading false propaganda. They will be defrauding consumers, if there is false propaganda about goods or services provided by them. Article 49 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests (1993) provides that, "operators shall, as required by consumers, increase the indemnification for the losses suffered by consumers, if they defraud in providing goods or services, and such an increase shall be one time the price paid by consumers for goods or the expenses paid by consumers for receiving services." Therefore, a people's court shall support the claim, if a consumer requests for the return of the price and an additional indemnification equal to one time of such a price as an operator defrauds in its propaganda.
[案例要旨]
经营者应当向消费者提供有关商品或者服务的真实信息,不得作引人误解的虚假宣传,如经营者提供的商品或服务存在虚假宣传,则构成对消费者的欺诈。根据1993年《消费者权益保护法》第四十九条,“经营者提供商品或者服务有欺诈行为的,应当按照消费者的要求增加赔偿其受到的损失,增加赔偿的金额为消费者购买商品的价款或者接受服务的费用的一倍。”因此,经营者存在虚假宣传行为,消费者要求退还价款,并额外赔偿相当于价款一倍的金额,法院应当予以支持。
No. 2 of Ten Model Cases Involving the Protection of Consumer Rights Issued by the Supreme People's Court, White Paper No. 2 of Status of the Safeguarding of Consumer Rights by the People's Courts (2010-2013) Issued by the Supreme People's Cour: Zhao Xiaohong v. Beijing Panam Furniture Co., Ltd. (Sales contract dispute) 最高人民法院公布10起维护消费者权益典型案例之二、最高法院发布《2010-2013年人民法院维护消费者权益状况》白皮书之二:赵晓红与北京泛美卓越家具有限责任公司买卖合同纠纷案
—It is a commercial fraud to sell board wood furniture as solid wood furniture, and the vendor shall assume the liability of “refund of price paid and damages in the amount of price paid.” ——板木材质家具作为实木家具出售构成商业欺诈,应承担“退一赔一”的责任
1. Basic Facts会让它误以为那是爱情 (一)基本案情都拉黑名单了,还接个P
On October 1, 2010, Zhao Xiaohong purchased several pieces of furniture from Beijing Panam Furniture Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Panam Company”) with a total price of 23,960 yuan. There were Chinese characters such as “birch,” “red birch from the U.S.,” and “walnut” marked by Panam Company on the furniture involved, and it was also stated in the furniture delivery note that the aforesaid furniture was made of “solid wood.” Zhao Xiaohong later found out that the furniture involved was made of board wood. Therefore, she filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Chaoyang District, Beijing, claiming that the furniture should be returned and Panam Company should refund to her the price paid and pay her damages of 23,960 yuan. 2010年10月1日,赵晓红在北京泛美卓越家具有限责任公司(以下简称泛美公司)购买家具若干件,合计价款23960元。涉案家具上有该公司注明的“桦木”、“美国赤桦木”、“胡桃木”等字样,且家具送货单上加注了上述家具为“实木”。后赵晓红发现涉案家具材质为板木结合,遂诉至北京市朝阳区人民法院,请求退还涉案家具及货款等,并赔偿23960元。
Panam Company admitted that certain products involved had quality flaws, but denied that such flaws constituted quality problems. Panam Company also argued that it had informed Zhao Xiaohong that the products involved were made of board wood in the sales process, but failed to provide the purchase certificates from suppliers, purchase invoices, product compliance certificates, specifications, and other supporting documents on the furniture involved. 泛美公司承认涉案的部分产品存在质量瑕疵,但否认构成产品质量问题,并认为其在销售过程中告知过赵晓红涉案产品为板木结合,但是泛美公司并不能提供涉案家具的进货凭证、购货发票、产品合格证、说明书等。
2. Judgment (二)裁判结果
After trial, the court of first instance held that: The evidence provided by Panam Company was insufficient to prove the truth of information on and quality of the furniture involved and Panam Company should assume corresponding product quality liability. As stated in the remarks of the furniture delivery note and the captions of furniture pictures in the product brochures of Panam Company, the furniture involved was all made of “XX wood” or “solid wood,” which was misleading and false publicity on the part of the furniture company and constituted a fraud on Zhao Xiaohong. Therefore, the court entered a judgment to support Zhao Xiaohong's claims. Panam Company appealed to the No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Beijing. On November 20, 2012, the court of second instance entered a judgment to sustain the original judgment. 一审法院经审理认为,泛美公司提供的证据不足以证明涉案家具的真实信息及品质,应承担相应的产品质量责任。同时,结合送货单上的加注以及泛美公司产品宣传图片中关于产品的文字介绍,表述均为“某某木”或“实木”,该家具公司存在引人误解的虚假宣传行为,构成对赵晓红的欺诈。故判决支持赵晓红的诉讼请求。泛美公司上诉至北京市第二中级人民法院。2012年11月20日,二审法院判决维持原判。
     
     
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