Shoe Stores Sell Fake Products. They Wear Shoes For Three Days.

On the 29 day, the reporter advertised that a high-profile consumer had encountered such a gloomy incident when he was playing the "fake ten penalty" advertising signboard while selling counterfeit products. But let her be more difficult to accept that, after complaints to the relevant departments, businesses do not acknowledge, and do not want to give ten times compensation.

In July 10th, Ms. song bought a pair of famous brand women in a shoe store for 388 yuan. Sandals But the new shoes had just worn for three days and began to fade. After finding out the problem, Ms. song found the shop owner and renewed a pair of new shoes. Later, it was identified that the shoes bought by Ms. song were fake and shoddy products. So Ms. song came to the consumer association to complain, and asked the shoe store to pay 3880 yuan in accordance with the "fake ten penalty" advertising sign.

However, when Ms. song found the shoe store again, the shoe store also admitted that the shoes were fake. But for Ms. song's request of "fake one compensate ten", the shop owner claimed that the advertising sign was only intended to attract customers, without legal basis. If we want to compensate, we can only give double the compensation according to the law of the protection of consumers' rights and interests, but Ms. song refused to accept it. In this regard, the Consumer Association believes that the shoe shop at its shop door "fake ten penalty" sign, the content is clear and specific, consumers who have been shopping have conveyed their good reputation, the quality of goods sold, no fake information, is an advertising and promotional means, is an offer to buy contracts. According to the principle of good faith in the civil law and the contract law, since the business has made a "fake ten penalty" commitment to consumers, the commitment has not violated the mandatory provisions of the law, nor has it harms the public interest and interests of others. This commitment has binding force on the behavior of merchants, and businesses should fulfill their commitments. As for the "one plus one" compensation stipulated in the consumer protection law, it is a statutory punitive damages for business offenses, and the promise of businesses lies in two legal relationships. As to which legal provision is the basis for compensation, it should depend on the right of consumers to choose.

Since there is a big controversy over the amount of compensation, there is still no way to reach agreement after repeated mediation. At the same time, the Consumer Association encouraged Ms. song to take legal proceedings to safeguard her rights. Her claim was reasonable and legal, and could be fully supported by law. In other places, there were similar cases of successful rights protection through litigation.