Shoddy Goods Are Sold By "Discount".

Business holiday promotion is tricky, judges judge fraud cases

As the Spring Festival draws near, many shopping centers have launched a variety of promotional activities. business At the same time, if there is a rolling source of money, is there any promotion and illegal behavior?

Yesterday, the judges of the Yanqing court analyzed the case in several cases.

Case 1: "discount" real increase

During the Spring Festival of 2010, Ms. Wang bought 450 yuan from a clothing store. Down Jackets . At that time, all the clothes in the shop were hit 25% off, and the clothes at the original price of 600 yuan could be reduced by 150 yuan. Two months later, Ms. Wang found that the clothes she bought were not only hairy, but also came out of feather bars, so the shop owner complained to the court.

In the trial, the mall admitted that the clothes were inferior products sold at the market price and could only be sold for about 300 yuan, which was sold in the name of promotion and price reduction, so that it could make a net profit of 150 yuan. Based on the above facts, the court decided that the shopping center would double the amount of compensation for 900 yuan.

Judge interpretation

In this case Market The act of deceiving consumers, which is called discounts, is not only against the statutory obligation of truthfully telling the true information of consumers, but also constitutes a misleading and fraudulent practice for consumers.

Case 2: "customer Award" to grab customers

During the Spring Festival of the year, the A digital product store will appeal to the neighboring B digital product store to the court. The reason is that the B store set up the "customer Award" during the festival, and the lucky person can get a bonus of 10 thousand yuan, resulting in a significant reduction in the number of customers in the store, demanding that the B shop stop the promotion and compensate for the loss of profits by 20 thousand yuan. The court tried to find out that B stores constituted unfair competition, but the loss and investigation cost of A stores could not provide sufficient evidence. Accordingly, B stores immediately decided to stop the infringement and compensate for the 1000 yuan of A franchised stores.

Judge interpretation

In this case, there is obviously a subjective malice in the award sale behavior of B stores. The intention is to create a sensational effect, and the purpose of making profits and crowding out competitors with smaller bait has constituted unfair competition.

Case 3: entrance fee

During the Spring Festival last year, a large supermarket decided to promote sales throughout the holiday season, and set up counters for investment promotion. One of the clothing store owners paid the manager Zhang yuan 1000 yuan in order to get a good booth. Zhang Jing Li saw that the matter was profitable, so he made a decision to raise the rent price by a certain range, and gained more than 30 thousand yuan from it. After that, his behavior was discovered by his superiors and sentenced to a year's imprisonment by the court.

Judge interpretation

In this case, Zhang's subjective intent to collect money is his own intention. He used the special duty convenience to objectively implement the act of accepting bribes, which has constituted the crime of commercial bribery.