论文部分内容阅读
案情简介 2001年12月31日,孙先生在北京某购物中心购买了300支黑色派克笔,购物中心为孙先生开具了发票,并注明:派克笔(黑)300支,单价35元,金额10500元,产地是美国。孙先生购买钢笔后,发现所购的笔在外包装上无任何产品标识,属“三无产品”,根本不是他在购买时服务员强调的美国原装进口产品,与商品标签和购物中心开具的发票上注明的产地是美国的标志也不符。于是,孙先生找到购物中心,要求其出示这批笔的进口手续,遭到了商场的拒绝。由此,孙先生以购物中心伪造产品产地,属欺诈行为为由将购物中心起诉到法院,要求购物中心依据《中华人民共和国消费者权益保护法》(以下简称《消法》)的有关规定,双倍返还货款,并承担诉讼费。案件审理中,购物中心称,商场服务是按照孙先生的要求开具发票的,现孙先生以笔的产地不是美国为由要求赔偿,很显然,孙先生的行为不符合《消法》的法律保护范围,不能依据《消法》的有关规定处理。因此,购物中心只同意给孙先生退货, 而不同意双倍返还货款。
On December 31, 2001, Mr. Sun bought 300 Black Parker pens at a shopping mall in Beijing. The mall issued an invoice for Mr. Sun and stated: Parker pen (black) 300, unit price 35 yuan, amount 10500 yuan, the origin is the United States. After purchasing the pen, Mr. Sun found that the purchased pen did not have any product identification on the outer package and was a “three non-product”, which was not at all the original U.S. import product he or she emphasized at the time of purchase and the invoice issued by the commodity label and the shopping center The origin of the mark is not consistent with the United States. As a result, Mr. Sun to find a mall, asking them to show the import of these pen procedures, the mall was rejected. As a result, Mr. Sun forged shopping centers for the origin of products, is a fraud on the grounds that the prosecution of the mall to the court, requiring shopping centers in accordance with the “People’s Republic of China Consumer Protection Law” (hereinafter referred to as “Consumer Law”) of the relevant provisions, Double back the payment, and bear the legal fees. In the trial of the case, the mall claimed that the service of the mall was invoiced according to Mr. Sun’s request. Now Mr. Sun claims compensation for the fact that Mr. Pen did not originate from the United States. Obviously, Mr. Sun’s behavior does not comply with the legal protection of “Consumer Law” Scope, can not be based on “consumer law” the relevant provisions of the deal. Therefore, the mall only agreed to return to Mr. Sun, but do not agree to double the return of money.