Changzhou men buy mahogany furniture, but unexpectedly it is a knockoff! Received 4.05 million

Often reported all media news spent more than 1.35 million yuan to buy a full house mahogany furniture, originally expected to add luster to the new home, I did not expect that bought is actually knockoff goods. After the first and second trials, the Changzhou Intermediate People's Court recently made a final judgment: the seller refunded the consumer's payment of 1.35 million yuan and paid compensation of 4.05 million yuan; the home plaza of the rental venue should return the above payment to the seller and The compensation payable shall be jointly and severally liable.

1.35 million yuan of mahogany furniture is actually "cottage" goods

Mr. Liu has always had the "complex" of mahogany furniture. In May 2014, he booked mahogany furniture worth about 1.35 million yuan, including a Qing style dining table, sofas and chairs, in a well-known mahogany brand showroom in a home plaza in the city. On November 6th of that year, after Mr. Liu paid the full payment, the exhibition hall sent the first batch of Qingtian table to Mr. Liu's house. After the table was placed at home, Mr. Liu seemed to look at it. He always felt that the furniture lacked charm and caused doubts. Therefore, on June 6, 2015, he signed a supplementary agreement with the operator of the exhibition hall, Wu, one of which is that the furniture that Wu promised to sell is the product of the famous brand. At the same time, Wu promised to exchange the previous Qing table.

However, after the signing of the supplementary agreement, Wu’s promise was simply a short check – not only did the table not be exchanged, but the furniture that was sent in succession was not reliable. Finally, the East Window incident - the authorization of the well-known brand to Wu was terminated a few years ago, Wu was suspected of infringing the well-known mahogany brand, and was reported by the media. When Mr. Liu heard the news, he learned that the goods that Wu gave him were actually imported from other factories.

In December 2016, Mr. Liu filed a lawsuit in the court of first instance, arguing that Wu was fraudulent and required him to repay one of the three losses, and the home plaza bears the responsibility for joint liquidation.

The court of first instance found that the operator was fraudulent and should be refunded three

The court of first instance held that if the operator provides fraudulent acts of goods or services, it shall increase the compensation for the losses suffered by the consumers in accordance with the requirements of the consumers, and increase the amount of compensation to be three times the price of the goods purchased by the consumers or the services received. The "fix/sales order" signed by both parties clarifies that the supplier is a "well-known mahogany brand" and has stamped the seal of the brand. The Supplementary Agreement clarified that the size and style of the goods delivered by Wu did not match, and the goods brand that Wu was guaranteed to exchange was the well-known mahogany brand. Secondly, in the two telephone recordings of Mr. Liu and Wu, Wu agreed Furniture that is not the well-known brand pretends to be sold, and expresses regret to Mr. Liu. It can be seen that the transaction between Wu and Mr. Liu constitutes fraud.

As for whether the home plaza should bear the responsibility, according to the provisions of Article 43 of the Consumer Law, if consumers purchase goods or receive services at the trade fair or rental counter, and their legitimate rights and interests are damaged, they may request the seller or the service provider. Compensation. After the expiration of the trade fair or the expiration of the counter lease, the organizer of the trade fair and the lessor of the counter may also claim compensation. After the organizer of the trade fair and the lessor of the counter compensate, they have the right to recover from the seller or the service provider.

When Mr. Liu sued, the lease contract for the home plaza and the mahogany exhibition hall had expired, and the mahogany exhibition hall also cancelled the individual industrial and commercial registration. Therefore, Mr. Liu can also claim compensation from the home plaza.

According to this, last August, the court of first instance made a judgment: Wu returned the consumer's payment of 1.35 million yuan, and paid compensation of 4.05 million yuan; the home plaza should pay the above-mentioned payment and the compensation payable by the seller. responsibility.

The court of second instance held that the home plaza bears the responsibility for joint and several liquidation.

It is necessary to bear the responsibility for the joint payment of this huge sum of money. The home square is full of grievances and incomprehensibility, and appeals to the Changzhou Intermediate People's Court.

The City Intermediate People's Court believes that the business model of the home plaza belongs to the introduction of various furniture and building materials brands in the form of investment, providing a sales platform and unified management of brand merchants. Therefore, the home plaza has an obligation to enter and examine the merchants in the mall. When the transaction occurred, the authorization of the mahogany company has been terminated, and the home plaza is negligent. Secondly, the home plaza publicly stated that its company is fully responsible for the quality of goods sold in the business premises. Nowadays, the fraud of the merchants has already been confirmed. It can be seen that for the goods in the mall exhibition hall, the home plaza has not been strictly checked to ensure the quality of the brand. The appeal opinion of the home plaza has no factual and legal basis and cannot be established according to law.

Recently, the City Intermediate People's Court made a final judgment: dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.