Wonderful!A man found that the rock sugar expired and continued to buy 14 bottles to claim to the supermarket

Last year, Yu bought an expired rock sugar in a supermarket in Pingnan County, Guigang City. Then he bought another 14 bottles of the same rock sugar and split into 15 cases. The claim is 1,000 yuan, a total of 15,000 yuan. Recently, the Pingnan County People's Court of Guigang City made a judgment of the case.

On December 1, 2021, Yu bought a bottle of 518 grams of rock sugar at 12.5 yuan in a supermarket in Pingnan County, Guigang. He found that the production date of the outer packaging of the rock sugar was June 24, 2021, but the product standard code on the outer packaging label was abolished on April 1, 2021. He believes that the behavior should belong to the behavior of production and sales that does not meet food safety standards.

Since then, Yu Mou went to the supermarket for two consecutive days, and bought 14 bottles of the brand's rock sugar in 14 times, and then he negotiated with rock sugar producers and supermarkets.

Due to the failure of negotiation, Yu Mou had 15 cases and sued the supermarket and rock sugar production enterprises. The 15 cases had the same demands: a supermarket was required to refund the food payment, and a supermarket and rock sugar production company jointly undertake 1,000 yuan.

The rock sugar production company believes that Yu Mou's purpose of buying rock sugar is to make claims, which obviously does not meet the consumer habits of general consumers. Yu Mou does not have consumer qualifications in the case. The enforcement standards marked on the rock sugar packaging involved in the case are not standardized because the previous packaging bags were not used, but the quality of the rock sugar was obtained in accordance with the latest national standard inspection, which meets the regulations. The court rejected all Yu's claims.

The court believes that the execution standards marked on the outer packaging of the crime in the case did expire on April 1, 2021, and did not meet the food safety standards. As producers and sellers of products involved in the case, the defendant company, supermarkets, in the process of production and sales

There should be an obligation to verify whether the food labels produced in accordance with the food safety standards. Due to its unfinished obligations of review, it should be regarded as a food that does not meet food safety standards for production and sale.

As a result, the court made a judgment on the purchase of rock sugar on December 1st. The defendant's supermarket paid Yu Mou's payment of 12.5 yuan, and the supermarket and rock sugar production company jointly compensated Yu for 1,000 yuan.

Regarding the remaining 14 cases, the court believed that in accordance with the legislative spirit of punitive compensation stipulated in the Food Safety Law in my country, Yu Mou purchased products with the same or similar parts of the same or similar in a short time and filed a lawsuit. A kind of split lawsuit, with a view to obtaining a number of punitive compensation, violated the principle of honesty. In this series of cases, the punitive compensation claimed by Yu has been supported in one of the cases. Therefore, of the remaining 14 cases, the punitive compensation was not supported, and the supermarket was judged to return the payment of rock sugar to Yu Mou.

Source: South State Morning Post reporter Wang Si, correspondent Qin Chengcheng

- END -