Professional counterfeiters also need to fight counterfeiting.

　

　　Mr. Yuan never imagined that he would meet such customers. He opened a small supermarket in xinhe town, Wenling City, Zhejiang Province. In December 2018, a customer bought many pieces of food in the small supermarket many times, and these foods all passed the shelf life. After that, the customer claimed compensation from the supermarket and also sued the People’s Court of Wenling City, Zhejiang Province. A few days ago, Mr. Yuan reached a mediation agreement with the customer and compensated the other party for 4,500 yuan.

　　Prosecute again after a trial in absentia

　　This customer is surnamed Zhang, 40 years old, from Hubei.

　　In July 2019, Zhang filed a case in the People’s Court of Wenling City, Zhejiang Province by mailing prosecution materials to sue the supermarket operated by Mr. Yuan. The item involved is a box of spore powder. The price of spore powder is 398 yuan, the production date is December 10, 2016, the shelf life is 24 months, and the purchase time is December 17, 2018. Zhang claimed 10 times compensation, that is, 3,980 yuan, from the supermarket on the grounds that the spore powder expired.

　　As scheduled by the court, the case is scheduled to open on August 1, 2019. Before the trial, Zhang applied for an extension of the trial, but the court rejected his application because he did not provide reasonable reasons. On the day of the trial, Zhang did not appear in court, and the case was dismissed.

　　On April 1, 2020, Zhang once again filed a case by mailing materials. The items involved this time are two bottles of drinks. Zhang said that he bought these two bottles of drinks twice on December 16 and 17, 2018. The production date of these two bottles of drinks is March 6, 2018, with a shelf life of 9 months, and the price is 4 yuan. Zhang’s appeal is to compensate 1000 yuan for each bottle of drinks.

　　On May 13th, Wenling Court heard the case. During the trial of the case, Zhang changed the litigation request and added the compensation request for the above spore powder, that is, he asked the supermarket to refund 406 yuan for the three purchases, compensate 5980 yuan, and refund 6386 yuan.

　　Proud of suing illegal businesses

　　During the epidemic prevention and control period, the court held a video session, and the supermarket arrived at the court to respond, while Zhang participated in the trial through remote video in Hubei.

　　During the trial, Zhang showed a video record of three purchases of goods. Every time he made a purchase, Zhang began to record videos before entering the store until the end of the purchase. Among them, close-ups were also taken on the production date and shelf life of the goods. In addition, Zhang also showed a shopping receipt.

　　The judge asked Zhang why he went to the supermarket to buy goods. Zhang replied that he traveled to Wenling and passed the supermarket, so he went into the store to buy things.

　　The judge asked: Why do you have to make a video every time you shop? Zhang said that he had bought inappropriate products, but the merchants denied it. He always hated this behavior of the merchants, so he developed the habit of making videos.

　　The judge asked: After I bought the drink for the first time, I found it was an expired product. Why did I buy it for the second time? Zhang replied: The state supports consumers to know and buy fakes.

　　The judge asked: Do you think you are a consumer or a professional counterfeiter? Zhang said that professional counterfeiters are not a legal concept. Professional counterfeiters should be courts, procuratorates, market supervision and management bureaus, public security bureaus, food and drug environmental investigation detachments, etc. As a citizen concerned about food safety, according to the right of claim granted by law, illegal businesses that deliberately sell food that do not meet food safety are punished. As a citizen, he is proud of suing illegal businesses.

　　The supermarket has no choice but to mediate.

　　In January 2019, Zhang complained to the Wenling market supervision department that the supermarket sold expired food. According to the report posted by Zhang, Zhang and his friends bought five bottles of drinks in the supermarket on December 16th, 17th and 18th, 2018, totaling 20 yuan.

　　Zhang’ s complaint report request is to order the supermarket to refund and compensate 5,000 yuan; The supermarket was ordered to bear all kinds of expenses arising from the complaint of 2331 yuan, and the reward was 2000 yuan or more according to the highest standard according to the relevant reward regulations.

　　The market supervision department filed a case for this, and in July 2019, it imposed an administrative penalty on the supermarket and ordered the supermarket to rectify the failure to establish a food purchase inspection record system; He was warned that his illegal income was 418 yuan and he was fined 65,000 yuan.

　　The supermarket did not agree to the compensation proposed by Zhang, and Zhang appealed to the court. During the trial, the supermarket said that Zhang was blackmailing. In addition to their supermarkets, Zhang also made claims in other supermarkets nearby. Other supermarkets chose to settle things with Zhang in order to avoid troubles.

　　After the trial, the supermarket agreed to mediate with Zhang. Mr. Yuan said that Zhang kept changing his claims, and he really didn’t have the energy to cope with Zhang’s prosecution. On May 18, 2020, the two parties reached a mediation agreement, and the supermarket voluntarily compensated Zhang for 4,500 yuan and 200 yuan, and Zhang no longer claimed any rights from the supermarket.

　　Repeated lawsuits were mostly rejected.

　　In recent years, there are more than 120 cases of consumer disputes brought by Zhang in Zhejiang Province, involving items such as food, medicine and mobile phones. Among them, there are more than 10 cases decided, and the vast majority of the judgment results are to reject Zhang’s claim.

　　On August 4, 2016, Zhang bought five pieces of clothing in a clothing store in Hangzhou. The sales staff told him that all the five pieces of clothing were sold at a 50% discount, compared with a 60% discount in July 2016. Zhang bought it at 50% off the tag price, and paid a total of 5474 yuan.

　　On September 10, 2016, Zhang went to the clothing store to buy 10 pieces of clothing. The salesperson told the 10 pieces of clothing that they were all sold at a 50% discount, which was previously sold at a 30% discount. Zhang bought it at 50% off the tag price, and paid a total of 10,473 yuan.

　　In October 2016, Zhang reported to the local market supervision department on the grounds that the defendant was suspected of price fraud and illegal propaganda. In December 2016, Zhang complained to the local government on the grounds of price fraud, asking the clothing store to refund one and lose three, and the clothing store refused to mediate.

　　On February 28, 2017, the local government made an advance notice of administrative punishment on the clothing store, arguing that the basic price of the discount was not indicated on the discount bulletin board set up by the clothing store in the store, which belonged to the situation that the operator violated the clearly marked price, so the clothing store was fined 3,000 yuan.

　　In November 2017, Zhang sued the court and asked the clothing store to refund 15,947 yuan and triple the compensation of 47,841 yuan.

　　The court found through trial that Zhang went to the clothing store for shopping for the third time in July 2017. Since 2015, Zhang has filed dozens of consumer rights litigation.

　　The court held that consumers’ rights and interests are protected by law if they need to buy or use goods or receive services for their daily consumption. In this case, Zhang went to the clothing store twice to buy clothes, and the time interval was about one month, and he bought 15 pieces. Audio and video recordings of the two shopping trips were taken from unconventional angles; In October 2016, Zhang complained to the administrative department about the two purchases in this case on the grounds of price fraud and illegal propaganda, but in July 2017, he went to the defendant for the third time to shop; In recent years, Zhang has filed dozens of consumer rights protection lawsuits, and there are cases in which he filed many lawsuits against the same type of operators in the same court at a certain period, which obviously violates the common sense of ordinary consumers.

　　The court also held that Zhang knew before making the intention to buy that the discount informed by the salesperson was based on the tag price and the price actually sold in the near future, and combined with his legal experience of asking for a refund of one and three on the grounds that the propaganda language was illegal, it was impossible for him to make a false intention to buy because of propaganda and shopping guide behavior.

　　Therefore, the court rejected Zhang’s claim that he was buying for the purpose of living consumption and was defrauded, and rejected all Zhang’s claims.