Herald News (reporter Chen Jie, correspondent Haifa) drank "three no coffee" dry mouth and heart palpitations, can you ask for a fake one to pay ten?Recently, the Haicang Court released such a case, a consumer was compensated 5,200 yuan for buying 3 boxes of "strange coffee". Let's see, what's going on?
It turned out that the consumer Xiaofu had previously placed an order to buy 3 boxes of "YY Black Gold Coffee" in a ** store, and paid a total of 521 yuan. After drinking, he experienced uncomfortable symptoms such as dry mouth and rapid heartbeat. He consulted customer service, but the customer service did not respond.
Xiao Fu found that the product category of product outsourcing and loading was milk tea. Subsequently, he checked the manufacturer's production and operation license and found that the license content was candy products, and the license number had expired. So, he complained to the ** platform and applied for a refund.
After receiving the complaint, the ** platform refunded 521 yuan. Recently, Xiao Fu filed a lawsuit with the Haicang Court, claiming that the merchant should bear the liability of ten times the compensation.
After the trial, the court held that the production date of some of the goods involved in the case was October 6, 2022, and some of the goods were not marked with the production date, but the corresponding production license number on the outer packaging of the goods was only valid until February 1, 2021, and there was no evidence to show that the production license was effectively extended, and the licensed content was candy products, which was inconsistent with the actual goods, and the merchant did not submit corresponding evidence to prove that the products it sold met the food safety standards, and the court found that the goods involved in the case did not meet the food safety standards. As the operator, the merchant did not submit evidence to prove the compliance of the purchase channel of the goods involved in the case, nor did it submit evidence to prove that it had fulfilled its duty of care and review when purchasing the goods, so the court found that the merchant was aware that the goods involved in the case did not meet the food safety standards.
Therefore, the court of first instance ruled in favor of Xiaofu's claim that the merchant should pay ten times the compensation of 5,210 yuan. At present, the judgment has entered into force.