The citizen Mr. Cai ordered a full set of “ all solid wood †birch furniture, but at the end they found that these furniture names were not true. When he brought the furniture company to court on the grounds of fraud, he found that the word "all solid wood" in the contract was missing, so he could not get double compensation . Recently, under the mediation of the Baoshan District Court, the two sides reached a mediation agreement.
[case playback]
In May of last year, Mr. Cai saw an advertisement for a furniture company on the Internet. The other party said that it was “beating the art of carving in Shanghaiâ€. After consultation, Mr. Cai signed a "Furniture Sale Contract" with the purchase of a living room and dining room furniture, totaling more than 80,000 yuan. After the discount, the price is more than 70,000 yuan, all of which are solid wood (birch), two months later. delivery. Mr. Cai paid a deposit of 20,000 yuan on the spot.
Since then, the "Da Vinci" incident has erupted. Mr. Cai repeatedly called the furniture company to order the "all solid wood" furniture, but the furniture company has not delivered. On October 20 last year, Mr. Cai’s mother in her 50s was alone at home. The company sent people to come to the door to say the amount of furniture, Cai mother let him into the house.
The worker took out a pre-printed "Furniture Sale Contract" and said, "You will help you get the furniture right when you sign it." When Cai Mu heard that she had to abolish the previous contract, she would not sign the contract and let her son sign it. According to Cai Mu, the worker was a little bit angry at the time. Cai’s contract was signed because of fear. After that, she was afraid that her family would worry about not telling her family that the contract had been “all solid woodâ€. The words have been deleted.
Mr. Cai took into account the decoration of the home has made supporting arrangements, and added more than 40,000 yuan of TV cabinets, wardrobes and other furniture. On October 30, Mr. Cai paid the account of the company owner 10,000 yuan through bank transfer. At this point, Mr. Cai has paid nearly 90,000 yuan for furniture.
On December 23 last year, the company delivered all the furniture, and the “Remarks†column on the delivery note was marked as “non-solid wood furnitureâ€. On this day, Mr. Cai paid 10,000 yuan to the owner of the furniture company, and there were still more than 10,000 yuan in the final payment.
Mr. Cai found that the furniture was sold everywhere on the Internet. The second change was signed by the company threatening the elderly. The company’s behavior was fraudulent and should be doubled back to the furniture. In February of this year, Mr. Cai filed a lawsuit.
The defendant furniture company believed that the testimony provided by the plaintiff’s mother had no proof and the plaintiff had no other evidence to prove that the defendant had committed fraud. After the contract was changed, the plaintiff not only accepted the furniture, but also ordered other furniture and paid the purchase price. It was a ratification of the change contract, so there was no fraud. In addition, due to the fact that the plaintiff did not pay the payment in time, the balance still has not been paid, which led to the delayed delivery of the defendant.
In order to prove that there was no intention of fraud, the defendant provided the court with a testimony of the delivery worker on December 23, saying that the plaintiff’s family was on the scene that day, and that it was installed from the morning until the afternoon before leaving. The plaintiff’s family did not propose. Objection and signature to receive the furniture.
After mediation by the court, the defendant agreed not to require the plaintiff to pay the balance of more than 10,000 yuan, and then pay the plaintiff 10,000 yuan compensation.
[by case]
If the operator provides fraudulent acts on goods or services, the consumer may claim "double compensation." The plaintiff in this case clearly marked the “all solid wood†furniture on the first contract with the defendant. If the defendant later supplied the “non-solid wood†and took the plaintiff, there is no doubt that the defendant constituted fraud.
However, the defendant amended the contract. Although the defendant made a relatively “blackmail†when signing the contract, the plaintiff did not provide strong evidence in the lawsuit. The defendant used the “coercion†means to overturn the modification contract. The plaintiff only provided the mother’s testimony, which was obviously not convincing.
Moreover, in the subsequent performance of the revised contract, the plaintiff is still ordering the defendant's furniture and paying. It can be said that the revised contract is approved by the plaintiff and the defendant does not constitute “fraudâ€. However, in this case, the defendant’s practice is indeed open to question.
[law dictionary]
Article 49 of the Consumer Protection Law: If an operator provides fraudulent acts of goods or services, it shall increase the compensation for the losses suffered by the consumers according to the requirements of the consumers. The amount of compensation shall be the price of the goods purchased by the consumers or the services received. Double the cost.
Glass Storage Jar,Glass Jar,3D Monster Storage container ,3D Cartoon Storage Holder ,Smoking Storage Sealed Jar With Lid, Polymer Clay Tobacco Storage Jar,Hand Painted Smoking Jar,Glass Smoking Accessaries
ShanXi Hippies Glass Tech. Co., Ltd. , https://www.hippiesglass.com