[Facts] Zhang bought 6 cooked bulk salted duck eggs at a fresh food ***, each with a unit price of 2$2. Zhang paid 6 times by swiping his bank card and got 6 shopping receipts. The batch of salted duck eggs has passed the expiration date of 1 day. The next day, Zhang bought the same batch of 40 salted duck eggs, and at the same time paid 40 times through the bank card, and got 40 shopping receipts, which had expired for 2 days.
After that, Zhang sued the court on the grounds that all 46 salted duck eggs had expired, requesting a fresh food *** to refund the purchase price 1012 yuan, and calculate punitive damages according to the minimum compensation of 1,000 yuan per piece460,000 yuan. After the trial, the court did not fully support Zhang's litigation claim, and ruled that a fresh food *** should refund the plaintiff's purchase price 1012 yuan, compensating Zhang 1012 yuan.
The Food Safety Law stipulates that if a consumer produces food that does not meet food safety standards or sells food that he knows does not meet food safety standards, in addition to claiming compensation for losses, he or she may also demand compensation from the producer or operator for ten times the price or three times the loss; Where the amount of increased compensation is less than 1,000 RMB, it is 1,000 RMB.
The trial court held that the 46 salted duck eggs purchased by Zhang had expired at the time of purchase. A fresh food *** belongs to "operating food that it knows does not meet food safety standards" and shall bear punitive damages. At the same time, the purchaser deliberately makes several or dozens of small payments in a single transaction, and requires the cumulative calculation of punitive damages according to the number of settlements, which is not in line with the usual trading habits of consumers, is inconsistent with the spirit of the punitive damages system stipulated in the Food Safety Law, and is also contrary to the principle of good faith, and should not be supported. The total amount paid by Zhang for the purchase of 46 salted duck eggs was 1012 yuan, which does not exceed the needs of living expenses, should be based on the total amount to calculate punitive damages.
According to the trial court, this case clarified the people's court's position of supporting "consumers" in punitive damages litigation within the scope of "living consumption needs", which not only protects the "safety of the tip of the tongue" of the general public, but also maintains an honest and orderly market order.
Case**: Supreme People's Court, compiled by reporter Wei Zhezhe).
People** 2024-02-01 Edition 19).