Jinan Yiyi spent 900 yuan to eat "Papaya Blood Swallow" for 5,000 yuan

"The people take food as the sky, and the food is safe." my country's Food Safety Law has established a punitive compensation system in the field of food safety, and officially introduced the people's "fake one compensation ten" approach to law. The ten -fold compensation system has obvious effects on ensuring food safety and deterrent merchants. However, ten times compensation allows consumers to get compensation far higher than their actual losses. This may provide high compensation for some people with impure people who have obtained high compensation through their means. resource.

Recently, a dispute over food cases caused by the "Papaya Bloody Swift" due to the "Papaya Bloody Swift" tried at the Huaiyin Court, the court finally rejected the claim request of 50,000 yuan.

On November 22, 2019, Wumei spent dishes such as "Papaya Bloody Swift" in a hotel in Huaiyin District, Jinan City. On November 26, Wumou reported to a market regulatory bureau in the form of a registered letter to report the hotel "Papaya Bloody Swallow" suspected of violating the Food Safety Law, requested administrative treatment, and ordered the hotel to return the meal fee of 900 yuan, the compensation ten times the meal for meals, The cost of 9,000 yuan and the total cost of transportation, printing costs, misunderstandings, lawyers' consulting fees, and mental loss costs of 50,000 yuan. In January and March 2020, the Market Supervision Bureau conducted on -site inspections on a hotel. The hotel provided a business license and listing list of bird's nest suppliers. Qualified proof that there is no problem in a hotel that violates the food safety law at the scene. The Market Supervision Bureau did not punish the hotel and responded to Wu.

Wu Mou believes that the blood swallow sold by a hotel does not have a legal source, and does not meet the approval of the entry and exit inspection and quarantine bureau, and does not meet the food safety standards. Then he uses a hotel to file a civil lawsuit to the Huaiyin Court and request to order a hotel to return Wumou to Wu Moumou. The meal fee is 900 yuan and pays ten times the compensation.

A hotel argued that the professional counterfeit personnel of Wu were not ordinary consumers and did not apply ten times the provisions of compensation. The dishes sold by the hotel meet the food safety standards. The bird's nest is purchased through regular channels and passed strict purchase inspection. Wu is a malicious complaint and requests to reject his lawsuit.

The Huaiyin Court believes that Wu Mou has dining in a hotel and forming a factual service contract relationship with the hotel. The service contract between the two parties is legal and valid, and it has been fulfilled.

According to Article 148, paragraph 2 of the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China, the prerequisite for Wu to request a hotel to return the meal fee and pay the price of ten times the compensation is that the food involved does not meet the food safety standards and the food safety standards and the food safety standards and A hotel knows that foods that do not meet safety standards are still sold.

However, the evidence submitted by the hotel can prove that the hotel is purchasing bird's nest through regular channels and fulfilled the obligation to purchase inspection. When dealing with Wumou complaints and reports, a market supervision bureau in a certain district conducted a live inspection on a hotel, reviewing the relevant evidence provided by the hotel on the spot, and no problem in the hotel had violated the Food Safety Law. Wu Mou did not submit evidence to prove that blood swallows in a hotel had product quality problems and knew that foods that did not meet safety standards were still selling. Therefore, Wu requested a hotel to refund the meal fee and pay a 10 -fold compensation request for meals. Lack of facts and legal basis, no support.

In the end, Huaiyin Court ruled that Wu Mou's litigation request for a certain hotel was rejected. After Wu's appeal, the Jinan Intermediate People's Court judged: the appeal was rejected and the original sentence was maintained.

New Yellow River Reporter: Chen Tongtong

Correspondent: Huang Jian

Edit: Xing Zhibin

- END -