Home >

Inside And Outside The Logo Is Different &Nbsp; Two Pairs Of Women'S Trousers Triggered Fake Lawsuit.

2011/9/28 11:02:00 64

??? 日本語 Fran?ais English 中文

Women's trousers

The tag says "fabric 100% cotton", while the inside label reads "50% cotton, 50% polyester" in Japanese. Accordingly, Mr. Hu will sell the business of the women's trousers to the court, and ask for "one back and one loss" on the grounds of fraud.

However, is there any intentional fraud in the business? Recently, the municipal intermediate hospital decided that the businessman did not deliberately hide the real information of the clothing, nor did he induce Mr. Hu to buy it, not to constitute fraud, thereby rejecting his petition.

In January 10th this year, Mr. Hu walked into a certain office.

Clothes & Accessories

The company is a store.

The salesman was puzzled that he went to the front of the ladies' clothing counter without asking about the color and color. He just looked at the clothing tag and then bought two women's trousers with the same color.

The total price of the two pairs of trousers is 1260 yuan, but the salesperson is kind enough to offer a discount, but the man refused.

On this woman's trousers.

Tag

The main content is "fabric 100% cotton, origin Japan", the bottom of the tag has the words of a clothing company.

However, the label on the inside of the trousers is marked in Japanese, meaning "50% cotton, 50% polyester".

In March of this year, Mr. Hu complained to the court on the grounds of the fact that the actual material of the garment was not consistent with the label of the tag, and the fraud of the clothing company. He ordered the clothing company to refund the purchase amount of 1260 yuan, and to compensate 1260 yuan for the purchase cost.

The court of first instance held that the clothing company labeled the fabric 50% cotton as 100% cotton, which violated the relevant provisions of the consumer protection law.

The clothing company refused to accept the appeal to the city intermediate people's court.

There are two reasons for appealing: first, Mr. Hu is not a consumer for consumption purpose, but a "professional dummy" for the purpose of profit. Secondly, in the entire sales activities, the clothing company has not deliberately concealed the real information of the clothing, and the clothing company has caused different internal and external standards of clothing due to work errors, rather than intentional fraud.

The collegiate bench found out that during the process of buying and selling with Mr. Hu, the clothing company did not inform Mr. Hu that there was a difference between the inside and outside of the clothing component and that the external standard should be the criterion.

In the second instance, the clothing company wrote a letter and agreed to give Mr. Hu a return.

The collegiate bench held that Mr. Hu, as a man, bought two pairs of trousers with the same color at the same time without samples, though it was not in conformity with the social conditions, but it was not enough to confirm that Mr. Hu's behavior was not for consumption purpose.

During the sale of the case, salesmen and Mr. Hu did not recommend and check the material and ingredients of the competition clothing, and the internal and external standards of clothing were publicly displayed.

Although the interior mark of the garment is marked with "50%", Japanese Mr. Hu, as a rational consumer, usually pays close attention to the internal standard while paying attention to the external target. When he finds out the inside and outside is not the same, he should consult and understand the real information of the product.

However, there is no evidence that salesmen deliberately conceal the actual information of women's pants or false statements to induce Mr. Hu to buy, so the clothing company's behavior does not constitute fraud.

As for the inside and outside of the women's trousers, the behavior of the inside and outside of the women's trousers is different.

The court of first instance decided that it was not good enough, and the collegial panel changed the sentence according to law, and granted the dress company voluntarily to return it for Mr. Hu.