China News Service, Nanjing, February 25 (Xu Shanshan) When a "shoe speculator" encounters a counterfeit seller and sues the court for triple compensation, how will the court judge this case?
The Intermediate People's Court of Zhenjiang City, Jiangsu Province ruled that the "cheaters" do not belong to consumers, and their claim for triple compensation should not be supported.
Not long ago, Zhang bought 10 pairs of "AJ11 Kang buckle shoes" from Zhao on WeChat, with a total price of 20,000 yuan.
After Zhang received the shoes, he verified the authenticity of some of the shoes through two platforms. However, the above verification failed, and the two sides disputed over this.
Because the two parties could not reach an agreement, Zhang sued to the court, asking Zhao to return the 20,000 yuan for the shoes and pay 60,000 yuan in triple compensation.
After hearing, the court held that the shoes sold by Zhao to Zhang failed to pass the appraisal on the two platforms, which made the purpose of the contract impossible to achieve, and Zhang wanted to return the goods for a refund on the basis of law.
Regarding Zhang's request to pay three times the compensation, the court held that Zhang purchased 10 pairs of shoes of the same brand, same style and different sizes. It can be proved that the goods involved in the purchase case are to meet the needs of life, and during the negotiation between the two parties in the lawsuit, both parties mentioned the resale of shoes. Therefore, Zhang's behavior has obviously exceeded the needs of daily life, and he cannot be identified as a consumer.
Therefore, the court did not support Zhang's claim of triple compensation.
In recent years, the "shoe fry fever" has intensified, and there are more and more "shoe fryers".
The judge said that in this capital game of drumming and spreading fancy, the market order has been affected, the industry ecology has been destroyed, some people have fallen into the trap of consumerism and cannot extricate themselves, and various legal disputes caused by this are also common.
"Article 2 of the "Consumer Rights Protection Law" stipulates that consumers need to buy, use goods or receive services for daily consumption, and their rights and interests are protected by this law." The judge introduced that in this case, Zhang's purchase of sneakers was not for daily use. Wearing, but to resell on the trading platform to earn the difference, so it belongs to "shoe speculators" rather than everyday consumers, so it has no right to claim triple compensation.
"This case exposes the market and legal risks of shoe speculation, which will help curb young people's enthusiasm for shoe speculation, avoid blind speculation, and promote rational consumption," the judge said.
(over)