Food Sterilizer,Food Processing Machinery Parts,Fish Processing Machines

Food Sterilizer,Food Processing Machinery Parts,Fish Processing Machines

The merchant said that “leather sitting chair” just sitting in the place with leather, not fraud, the court judged like this

Source: French Eye Observation Special Tips: All works that indicate “source” or “transfer” are reproduced from the media, and the copyright belongs to the original author and the original place. The shared content is the author’s personal point of view. It is for readers to learn reference only and does not represent this point of view.

The product on the order is “leather chair” is “


“, Not”


“So we are just

Sit up

There are leather places. So isn’t it fraud? This reason for this defense is really

Qing (wu) New (chi) take off (zHI) vulgar (ji)


Beijing Changping District People’s Court

(2017) Beijing 0114 Minchu No. 12443

Party information

Plaintiff: Li Moumou.

Entrusted litigation agent: Wang Moumou (husband of Li Moumou).

Defendant: Beijing Founder Licheng Automobile Sales Service Co., Ltd., Houguan Village, Hui Longguan Village, Huilongguan Village, Hui Longguan Village, Hui Longguan Village, Hui Longguan Village, Beijing, Beijing.

Legal representative: Chen Moumou, general manager.

Entrusted litigation agent: Wang Moumou, male, employee of Beijing Fangzhengli Automobile Sales Service Co., Ltd..


The plaintiff Li Moumou and the defendant Beijing Fang Zhenglicheng Automobile Sales Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as a car sales company) trading contract dispute. After the case was filed on July 17, 2017, the Simple procedure was applied in accordance with the law. Essence The plaintiff Li Moumou, his entrusted litigation agent Wang Moumou, and the agent of the defendant’s car sales company to the court to participate in the lawsuit. This case has been tried in this case.

The plaintiff complained

Li Moumou made a claim to the court: 1. The defendant ordered the defendant to refund the leather seat 3,000 yuan; 2. The defendant was ordered to compensate 9,000 yuan; 3. The litigation fee was borne by the defendant. Facts and reasons: On May 29, 2015, I ordered a Mazda 6 sedan from the Automobile Sales Company, and the leather seat was 3,000 yuan. On the same day, I paid a deposit of 2,000 yuan to the car sales company and set the vehicle down, with a total price of 125,800 yuan. On June 4, 2015, I paid the end of the end and then took the vehicle away. Less than two years of vehicles, the seats began to be damaged and peeled. I asked the defendant to ask the reason. The defendant said that the seat was not the leather. It was said that it was a row, and it was re -packed for a set of re -packaging. In my opinion, as a consumer, I was framed by the car sales company when buying a commodity (vehicle). The seat model is 9,000 yuan. In order to safeguard my legitimate rights and interests, I filed a lawsuit with the court and asked the court to support my lawsuit.

The car sales company acknowledges the fact that the plaintiff’s purchase of leather seats claimed in this case, but believes that the seats and backs of the seat are leather, and the rest is not leather and does not constitute fraud.

And the definition of “leather” should be the general term of animal skin and artificial synthetic skin, and should not be understood as animal skin. The product on the new car sales order is called “leather chair” is “sitting”, not “seat”, so we just sit in the place where there is leather

Essence The plaintiff spent only 2,000 yuan in my purchase seat, not 3,000 yuan.

The court considers

The court believes that Beijing Founder Licheng Automobile Sales Service Co., Ltd. admits that Li Moumou’s purchase of leather seats in this case is confirmed to the facts advocated by Li Moumou. There is a sales contract relationship between Li Moumou and the car sales company. The legal relationship between the legal relationship is the true meaning of the parties to the parties. The content does not violate the compulsory provisions of laws and regulations. It is legal and effective. The per capita parties should fulfill the contract obligations in accordance with the contract. The law stipulates that the operator adopts false or other improper means deception and misleading consumers, which is damaged by consumers’ legitimate rights and interests, which is a fraudulent consumer behavior. If the operator provides fraudulent acts or services, it shall increase the loss of compensation in accordance with the requirements of consumers, and increase the amount of compensation for three times the price of the purchase of goods or the cost of receiving services for consumers. In this case, Li Moumou claimed to refund the leather seat model of 3,000 yuan and three times the compensation request, which provided a new car sales order to prove it. Although the car sales company submitted the sales details, the record decoration was 2000 yuan, but the evidence did not have Li Li without Lee A certain signature confirmed that it was only the company’s internal documents, and the court did not accept it. According to the usual understanding, “leather” refers to processing using the skin of animals, and leather products can hang the leather logo registered by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce. According to the photos provided by Li Moumou, the “leather seats” sold by automobile sales companies have been cracked and damaged after use. There is no label and instructions for the seat, no producer, ingredient information and quality certificate, etc.

The car sales company also recognizes that the seat is only produced by “leather”, but the “leather seat” on the sales order is enough to constitute a misleading consumer.

Essence Therefore, the automobile sales company shall bear the liability for compensation in accordance with Article 55 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law. Li Yawen’s request to refund the price and three times the request of compensation is evident in France, and the court supports it.

Referee result

According to Article 20 and 55 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

1. The defendant Beijing Fang Zhenglisheng Automobile Sales Service Co., Ltd. will refund the price of 3,000 yuan to the plaintiff Li Moumou from ten days from the date of effectiveness. At the same time Sales Service Co., Ltd.;

2. The defendant Beijing Fang Zhenglisheng Automobile Sales Service Co., Ltd. compensated the plaintiff Li Moumou 9,000 yuan within ten days from the date of effectiveness of this judgment;

Third, reject the plaintiff Li Moumou’s other litigation requests.

If you fail to fulfill the obligation to pay for the period according to the period specified in this judgment, you shall double the debt interest during the delayed performance in accordance with Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China.

The case acceptance fee was 50 yuan, and the defendant Beijing Fang Zhenglisheng Automobile Sales Service Co., Ltd. was borne (paid within ten days after this judgment).

If you do not accept this verdict, you can submit an appeal to the court within 15 days from the date of the judgment, and file a copy according to the number of the other party, appeal to the Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court.


Acting judge Tan Moumou

Referee date

August 31, 2017


Secretary Li Li


Quality chair furniture recommendation: synthetic leather chair.