Clothing Sold By A Businessman In Chongqing Is Not Awarded The "Factory Name" Site.

Recently, the clothing sold by a clothing manufacturer in Chongqing was not found to be in breach of the "factory name" site. The law stipulates that the manufacturer's and factory's location is not marked on the certificate of clothing purchased by consumers.

Constitutes fraud and claims are rejected.

The fifth intermediate people's Court of Chongqing recently made a two trial decision on the dispute, and found that the product label violated the legal provisions, but it did not constitute fraud. She was sentenced to refund the shopping mall products, and the shopping mall returned 1056 yuan for shopping.

The origin of the story is like this:

In June 7, 2014, Ms. Lee spent 1056 yuan on one of the Scofield shirts and T-shirts in a shopping mall in Chongqing.

Among them, the certificate of the shirt contains "dealer: clothing and love fashion (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., address: No. 5888, Long Wu Road, Minhang District, Shanghai: manufacturing site: Zhejiang Yiwu".

The T-shirt certificate contains "dealer: clothing and love fashion (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., address: No. 5888 Long Wu Road, Minhang District, Shanghai, Suzhou:"

Another find out that clothing and fashion (Shanghai) Limited has the right to use the Scofield trademark. The company has commissioned several manufacturers to process its clothing products.

Ms. Li believes that the product is not marked with the name and address of the plant, which violates the law.

The Sales Department of the clothing sales department was fraudulent, and then filed a lawsuit with the people's Court of Yuzhong District of Chongqing, requesting to order the shopping mall to refund the loan and make a compensation of 3 times the total amount of the goods, which amounts to 4224 yuan.

After the trial, the court held that the label on the clothing certificate was the dealer, not the producer. The logo violated the twenty-seventh article of the PRC quality of products law. The product name or the label on the package should be specified in the Chinese name of the factory name and the site of the factory.

The existing evidence can not fully prove that the behavior of the producers and sellers involved in the case constitutes fraud.

Accordingly, the court made the decision.

Judge said.

The judge who heard the case said that the establishment of fraud was subjective and fraudulent. He knew or should know his false statement or conceal the truth and would lead the other side into a wrong understanding and hope or indulge in such a result.

Objectively carrying out the act of telling false information or hiding the truth.

In this case, clothing and fashion (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

The name and address are marked on the name of the distributor. Although it is not clear that it is a producer, it has a certain illegality. But when the product quality problem arises, consumers can be held responsible for the "dealer".

Such an untagged producer is different from the fact that the producer is not labelled so that the subject of liability can not be found.

The two sides have no dispute over the quality of the products involved, and there is no evidence to prove the quality of the products.

From the common sense, it is not necessary to mislead the other party into a wrong understanding and seek illegal interests by way of not marking the producer. Therefore, the clothing and fashion company (Shanghai) Limited has no intention of cheating.

In the objective aspect,

The practice of marking in Shanghai is indeed a true reflection in the whole production process, and there is no act of deception to inform the false situation.

It does not have to indicate the legal obligation of the name and address of the trustee, and there is no act of deception by concealing the truth.

The existing evidence can not fully prove that the behavior of clothing companies and sales stores constitutes fraud.