目录

1．殷崇义诉武汉汉福超市有限公司汉阳分公司买卖合同纠纷案

2．刘新诉陕西立新药房买卖合同纠纷案

3．王辛诉小米科技有限责任公司网络购物合同纠纷案

4．李晓东诉酒仙网电子商务股份有限公司网购合同纠纷案

5.杨波诉巴彦淖尔市合众圆通速递有限公司乌拉特前旗分公司、付迎春网络购物合同纠纷案

6.范建武诉广东省文物总店买卖合同纠纷案

7.于奥泳诉毕丽萍产品销售者责任纠纷案

8.王某诉北京伊露游婴儿用品有限公司服务合同纠纷案

9.吴军梅诉浙江苏宁云商商贸有限公司买卖合同纠纷案

10.王毅诉天津中进沛显汽车服务有限公司买卖合同纠纷案

一、殷崇义诉武汉汉福超市有限公司汉阳分公司买卖合同纠纷案

——经营者销售过期食品，属于明知食品不安全而销售的行为，消费者有权请求退还货款并支付价款十倍赔偿。

（一）基本案情

2013年6月17日，殷崇义向武汉汉福超市有限公司汉阳分公司（以下简称汉福超市）支付251元，购买桃花姬阿胶糕一盒，食品外包装载明的生产日期为2012年8月7日，保质期为10个月。购买后殷崇义发现食品已过保质期，即向该超市要求退货无果，遂向湖北省武汉市汉阳区人民法院起诉，请求汉福超市退还货款251元，十倍赔偿货款2510元，支付交通费3000元、精神抚慰金3000元。

（二）裁判结果

一审法院认为，殷崇义提供的购物发票可以证实其与汉福超市建立了买卖合同关系。 关于殷崇义现持有已过期并据以提起诉讼的桃花姬阿胶糕是否就是当时汉福超市所销售的商品的认定。首先，殷崇义提供了商品实物及购物发票，完成了证明消费者购物的举证责任，且殷崇义于购买当日就向汉福超市反映情况要求退货，双方协商不成于同日就向武汉市工商行政管理局汉阳分局进行了申诉，殷崇义反映产品质量问题很及时。汉福超市虽辩称殷崇义要求退货的过期桃花姬阿胶糕不是汉福超市卖场提供的，但未向法院提交同期进货的证据证实不是汉福超市卖场销售的，与殷崇义提供的桃花姬阿胶糕不是一批次产品。汉福超市不能提供完整的食品进货查验记录，应承担举证不能的责任。其出售超过保质期的食品是法律所禁止的行为。据此，一审法院依照《食品安全法》第96条的规定，判决汉福超市退还货款251元，十倍赔偿货款2510元，赔偿殷崇义交通费500元。汉福超市以原审认定事实和适用法律有误为由提起上诉。武汉市中级人民法院二审认为，汉福超市主张本案所涉商品不是由其销售，但又不能提供充足的证据予以证明，且其对殷崇义出具的购物发票没有异议，故对其该主张不予支持。汉福超市销售过期食品为法律所禁止，依法应承担赔偿责任。法院对其不是故意销售过期食品，不应承担赔偿责任的主张不予支持，判决维持原判。

二、刘新诉陕西立新药房买卖合同纠纷案

——经营者出售假冒其他批号的保健食品，属于出售明知是不安全的食品，消费者有权请求退还货款并支付价款十倍赔偿。

（一）基本案情

2012年10月19日，刘新向陕西立新药房（以下简称立新药房）支付280元购买4盒“快速瘦身减肥胶囊”，产品包装注明批准文号为卫食健字（2003）第0129号。刘新购买后未拆封、未食用。后登陆国家食品药品监督管理局网站查询，未找到该产品的相关信息。另根据产品包装上注明的批准文号卫食健字（2003）第0129号，查询出经中华人民共和国卫生部批准的该文号下的保健品名称为：“俏妹牌减肥胶囊”。刘新认为其所购的保健食品未在国家食品药品监督管理局登记，应为不合格的假冒产品，遂向陕西省西安市莲湖区人民法院起诉，请求立新药房退还货款280元，十倍赔偿购货价款2800元。

（二）裁判结果

受诉法院经审理认为，立新药房销售的“快速瘦身减肥胶囊”属于保健食品，该食品上标注的“食卫健字（2003）第0129号”批准文号，与国家食品药品监督管理局网站中的同一批准文号的产品名称“俏妹牌减肥胶囊”不一致，立新药房也未能提供该产品相关准许生产的证明文件。《保健食品管理办法》第五条规定：“凡声称具有保健功能的食品必须经卫生部审查确认”；该办法第二十一条第五项规定：“保健食品标签和说明书必须符合国家有关标准和要求，并标明保健食品批准文号”。立新药房销售的保健食品“快速瘦身减肥胶囊”系冒用批准文号的商品，其行为违反了上述规定。立新药房作为销售者，在进货时未审查相关批准证书，使该产品进入流通环节，其行为构成《食品安全法》第九十六条第二款“销售明知是不符合食品安全标准的食品”，应依法退货退款并支付赔偿金。该院遂判决立新药房退还刘新货款280元，并向刘新赔偿十倍购物价款2800元。立新药房未上诉。

三、王辛诉小米科技有限责任公司网络购物合同纠纷案

——销售者网上销售商品有价格欺诈行为，诱使消费者购买该商品的，即使该商品质量合格，消费者有权请求销售者“退一赔三”和保底赔偿。

（一）基本案情

2014年4月8日，小米科技有限责任公司（以下简称小米公司）在其官方网站上发布的广告显示：10400mAh移动电源，“米粉节”特价49元。当日，王辛在该网站上订购了以下两款移动电源：小米金属移动电源10400mAh银色69元，小米移动电源5200mAh银色39元。王辛提交订单后，于当日通过支付宝向小米公司付款108元。同月12日，王辛收到上述两个移动电源及配套的数据线。同月17日，王辛发现使用5200mAh移动电源的原配数据线不能给手机充满电，故与小米公司的客服联系，要求调换数据线。小米公司同意调换并已收到该数据线。此后，王辛以小米公司对其实施价格欺诈为由向北京市海淀区人民法院起诉，请求撤销网络购物合同，王辛退还小米公司两套涉案移动电源，并请求小米公司：1、赔偿王辛500元；2、退还王辛购货价款108元；3、支付王辛快递费15元；4、赔偿王辛交通费、打印费、复印费100元。

（二） 裁判结果

一审法院认为，涉案网络购物合同有效，小米公司的行为不构成欺诈，王辛的诉讼请求证据不足，故判决驳回其诉讼请求。王辛不服，向北京市第一中级人民法院提起上诉称，小米公司提前一周打出原价69元电源“米粉节”卖49元的广告，欺骗消费者进行排队抢购，销售当天广告还在，但商品却卖69元，小米公司为网购设定了定时抢购，抢购时间不到20分钟，其行为已构成价格欺诈。二审法院认为，涉案网购合同有效，消费者拥有公平交易权和商品知情权。由于小米公司网络抢购此种销售方式的特殊性，该广告与商品的抢购界面直接链接且消费者需在短时间内作出购买的意思表示。王辛由于认同小米公司广告价格49元，故在“米粉节”当日作出抢购的意思表示，其真实意思表示的价格应为49元，但从小米网站订单详情可以看出，王辛于2014年4月8日14时30分下单，订单中10400mAh移动电源的价格却为69元而非49元。小米公司现认可小米商城活动界面显示错误，存在广告价格与实际结算价格不一致之情形，但其解释为电脑后台系统出现错误。由于小米公司事后就其后台出现错误问题并未在网络上向消费者作出声明，且其无证据证明“米粉节”当天其电脑后台出现故障，故二审法院认定小米公司对此存在欺诈消费者的故意，王辛关于10400mAh移动电源存在欺诈请求撤销合同的请求合理，对另一电源双方当事人均同意解除合同，二审法院准许。据此，该院依法判决王辛退还小米公司上述两个移动电源，小米公司保底赔偿王辛500元，退还王辛货款108元，驳回王辛其他诉讼请求。

四、李晓东诉酒仙网电子商务股份有限公司网购合同纠纷案

——电商作为销售者利用他人网络销售货物过程中有欺诈行为，交易后与消费者达成赔偿协议而不履行，消费者有权请求销售者依照协议承担赔偿责任。

（一）基本案情

2012年8月9日，李晓东在淘宝网购买了酒仙网电子商务股份有限公司（以下简称酒仙公司）销售的白酒6瓶，网上商品页面描述为［白酒中国名牌52度五粮液（1618）500ml特价］，成交价为8349元。交易完成后李晓东查询上述网页发现，其购买的白酒在酒仙公司的淘宝店铺中标注的商品“特价和原价”相等，于是向北京市价格举报中心举报。之后，李晓东与酒仙公司达成《谅解协议书》，约定双方于协议签订后5日内完成退货、退款手续，酒仙公司赔偿李晓东8394元，如一方违约，承担总金额20%的违约金。因酒仙公司未履行该协议，李晓东诉至江苏省滨海县人民法院，请求酒仙公司赔偿8394元并承担违约金1678.8元。

（二）裁判结果

受诉法院认为，经营者与消费者进行交易，应当遵循自愿、平等、公平、诚实信用的原则。经营者在交易过程中，应当向消费者提供有关商品的真实信息，不得作虚假宣传。在本案网络交易过程中，酒仙公司以网上销售的是特价商品来误导消费者，其行为已构成欺诈，依法应当承担法律责任。李晓东在请求赔偿过程中与酒仙公司达成了谅解协议，因酒仙公司未能按照该协议约定义务履行，其行为已构成违约，应当承担违约责任。因此，李晓东要求酒仙公司按照协议履行赔偿义务的诉讼请求，符合法律规定，依法应予支持。经受诉法院合法传唤，酒仙公司无正当理由拒不到庭参加诉讼，视为放弃其抗辩权，应当承担对其不利的法律后果。受诉法院判决酒仙公司给付李晓东赔偿款8394元，并承担违约金1678.8元，共计10072.8元。酒仙公司未上诉。

五、杨波诉巴彦淖尔市合众圆通速递有限公司乌拉特前旗分公司、付迎春网络购物合同纠纷案

——消费者网购的货物在交付过程中被他人冒领，消费者主张销售者与送货人共同承担赔偿责任的，根据合同相对性原则，应由销售者承担赔偿责任。

（一）基本案情

2013年3月19日，杨波以网购形式从付迎春开办的电子经营部购买价值15123元的电脑一台，下单后货款及邮寄费95元均已向迎春付清。同日，付迎春委托巴彦淖尔市合众圆通速递有限公司乌拉特前旗分公司（以下简称速递公司）送货。该货物于同月24日到达交货地后被他人冒领。为此，杨波多次要求付迎春交货未果，遂诉至内蒙古自治区乌拉特前旗人民法院，请求判令速递公司、付迎春赔偿其电脑款15123元和邮寄费95元。

（二）裁判结果

受诉法院认为，杨波以网购形式从付迎春处购买商品，并向付迎春支付了货款和邮寄费，付迎春作为托运人委托速递公司将货物交付给杨波，分别形成网购合同关系和运输合同关系。从当事人各自的权利义务来看，在网购合同中，杨波通过网上银行已经支付了货款和邮寄费，履行了消费者的付款义务，付迎春作为销售者依约负有向杨波交货的义务。虽然付迎春已将货物交给速递公司发运，但在运输过程中，速递公司的工作人员在送货时未验证对方身份信息擅自将货物交由他人签收，销售者付迎春尚未完成货物交付义务，构成违约，故对杨波请求付迎春赔偿已付的电脑款15123元，邮寄费95元的诉讼请求应予支持。根据合同相对性原则，合同只约束缔约双方当事人，速递公司将货物错交给他人，属于付迎春与速递公司之间的运输关系。速递公司不应在本案中承担赔偿责任，故对杨波关于速递公司应当承担赔偿责任的请求不予支持。受诉法院判决付迎春赔偿杨波已付的电脑款15123元及邮寄费95元。当事人均未上诉。

六、范建武诉广东省文物总店买卖合同纠纷案

——销售者以普通石榴玉石手镯冒充翡翠手镯出售，构成对消费者的欺诈，消费者有权请求向销售者退货，销售者向消费者退还货款并支付价款三倍赔偿。

（一）基本案情

2014年4月17日，范建武在广东省文物总店（以下简称文物总店）花17100元购买了一只手镯，该商店向其开据了发票，发票载明的商品为“yqgda-0765玉镯”，金额为17100元。同月24日，范建武又到该商店要求换开发票，该商店遂收回原来开的发票，重新为范建武开具一张发票，发票载明的商品为“yqgda-0765翡翠手镯”。所购手镯经广东省地质科学研究所鉴定为“水钙铝榴石手镯”。后应该商店要求，双方当事人共同委托广东省珠宝玉石及贵金属检测中心对手镯进行重新鉴定，鉴定结果为“石榴石质玉手镯”。范建武认为文物总店将普通的石榴石手镯冒充翡翠手镯出售，以假充真，对其构成欺诈，遂向广东省广州市越秀区人民法院起诉，请求文物总店向其退还货款17100元，并依法赔偿其51300元。

（二）裁判结果

一审法院经审理认为，文物总店开具给范建武的销售发票显示为“翡翠手镯”，但经鉴定实为“石榴石质玉手镯”。虽然该商店辩称其是经范建武一再恳求，才将第一次发票项目“玉镯”更改为“翡翠手镯”，但从范建武提供的录音证据来看，该商店主张其销售给范建武的手镯质地就是翡翠，并明确告知范建武购买的玉镯是翡翠制成。该商店作为经营者将“石榴石质玉手镯”冒充“翡翠手镯”销售给范建武，以假充真，能够认定为欺诈消费者。一审法院依照《消费者权益保护法》第五十五条之规定，判决：范建武将所购手镯退还文物总店，该商店退还范建武货款17100元；文物总店向范建武赔偿手镯三倍价款51300元。文物总店不服，以原审认定事实、适用法律有误为由提起上诉，广东省广州市中级人民法院二审认为，根据文物总店开具的发票以及范建武提供的谈话录音，已充分证实其向范建武销售的是“翡翠手镯”，现该手镯经双方共同委托鉴定后被确定为“石榴石质玉手镯”，与文物总店在销售过程中所声称的商品品质存在显著差异，故原审法院认定其行为构成欺诈并无不当。文物总店以讼争的手镯具有文物价值为由，主张其行为不构成欺诈，范建武未遭受损失，理由均不成立。据此，该院判决维持原判。

七、于奥泳诉毕丽萍产品销售者责任纠纷案

——经营者对其保健用品作虚假宣传，诱导消费者购买，构成商业欺诈，消费者有权请求经营者退还货款并支付货款三倍的赔偿。

（一）基本案情

2014年4月16日，于奥泳在毕丽萍处以14100元的价格购买双宁牌功能性保健床垫二套，规格为2米×1.5米×0.12米。经使用，该床垫并没有毕丽萍宣传的预防癌症发生、抑制癌细胞生长、治病防病等功能。为此，于奥泳向山东省威海火炬高技术产业开发区人民法院起诉，主张毕丽萍的行为对其构成欺诈，请求判令毕丽萍退还货款28200元，并按购货价款三倍赔偿其84600元。

（二）裁判结果

受诉法院经审理认为，毕丽萍认可于奥泳所主张的事实，其行为构成了商业欺诈，并承认应按原告诉讼请求返还货款并支付货款三倍的赔偿。该院依照《消费者权益保护法》第五十五条之规定，判决毕丽萍返还于奥泳货款28200元并赔偿于奥泳购货三倍的价款84600元。毕丽萍未上诉。

八、王某诉北京伊露游婴儿用品有限公司服务合同纠纷案

——消费者在使用预付卡消费过程中，因经营者不在原地址经营，导致消费卡无法使用，其有权请求解除合同并退还预付卡余额。

（一）基本案情

2013年9月3日，婴儿王某在北京伊露游婴儿用品有限公司（以下简称伊露游公司）体验游泳一次，其母向伊露游公司交纳办理游泳卡押金100元。同月5日，其母向伊露游公司交纳办理40次游泳卡余款2498元（期限为2013年9月5日至2014年9月5日）。办卡后王某曾游泳一次，未出现哭闹的现象，在第三次和第四次游泳时出现哭闹。二审中伊露游公司已不在原地址经营，王某的游泳卡已不能继续使用。王某以伊露游公司提供的服务不符合合同约定，王某无法实现合同目的为由，要求与伊露游公司解除合同，并退还剩余款项，但遭拒绝，遂向北京市丰台区人民法院起诉，请求伊露游公司返还其押金100元和游泳卡余额2387.55元。

（二）裁判结果

一审法院认为，王某与伊露游公司之间口头订立的服务合同有效。王某诉称的伊露游公司经营范围、地址与发票问题，与合同目的无关；所称伊露游公司违反相关管理条例及提供的服务不符合约定，证据不足，无法证明其合同目的无法实现与伊露游公司的行为存在因果关系，故判决驳回王某的诉讼请求。王某提起上诉称，伊露游公司有违约行为，合同应予解除。北京市第二中级人民法院二审认为，在本案二审过程中，伊露游公司经合法传唤未到庭应诉，亦未在其经营地及注册地经营，致王某购买的游泳卡无法继续使用，合同事实上已无法履行。王某要求解除合同的上诉主张，符合《合同法》第九十三条规定的合同解除的情形。据此，该院判决：撤销一审判决，解除王某与伊露游公司之间的服务合同，伊露游公司返还王某游泳卡费用2262.65元，押金100元。

九、吴军梅诉浙江苏宁云商商贸有限公司买卖合同纠纷案

——销售者依约安装其销售的空调机，安装过程中因其不慎发生安全隐患，造成消费者损失，应当承担相应的赔偿责任。

（一）基本案情

2008年4月30日，吴军梅向浙江苏宁云商商贸有限公司（以下简称苏宁公司）购买大金牌空调机一台，总价款8051元。苏宁公司向吴军梅出具安装单，并依约于2008年5月11日派人到吴军梅家中安装空调机。2013年8月，吴军梅家中客厅及相邻房间的地板、墙面被水侵蚀。经大金空调售后人员检查确认，空调机排水管通过的墙洞处没有封堵，老鼠咬断墙洞处排水管漏水所致。吴军梅对受损地板、墙面及相关区域进行了维修，维修费用未获赔偿。吴军梅遂向浙江省杭州市萧山区人民法院起诉，请求判令苏宁公司赔偿其损失14104元，并支付精神损害抚慰金1万元。

（二）裁判结果

受诉法院经审理认为，吴军梅与苏宁公司之间的买卖合同关系成立且合法有效。空调机是一种安装规范要求较高的制冷设备，苏宁公司作为销售者，不仅应提供符合质量要求的机器设备，也应提供符合规范要求的安装服务。吴军梅购买的空调机不论实际是由生产厂家安装还是由销售者安装，都不能排除销售者作为合同相对方负有的确保空调正常使用，不造成人身财产损害的义务。苏宁公司未尽到合理谨慎注意义务，未能确保空调排水管通过的墙洞封堵，以致老鼠能够进入墙洞咬断排水管，造成漏水，引起屋内墙面、地面受损。其未妥善履行合同义务与受损结果有因果关系，对吴军梅因此遭受的损失负有责任。吴军梅作为消费者，要求苏宁公司赔偿修复地板、墙面产生的费用，该院予以支持。吴军梅主张的误工费和精神损害抚慰金，缺乏依据，该院不予支持。该院判决苏宁公司赔偿吴军梅实际修复费用12175元。苏宁公司未上诉。

十、王毅诉天津中进沛显汽车服务有限公司买卖合同纠纷案

——经营者销售已公告召回的汽车，构成商业欺诈。消费者有权请求退还所购汽车，并由经营者退还购车款并赔偿一倍的购车款。

（一）基本案情

2013年9月28日，王毅向天津中进沛显汽车服务有限公司（以下简称中进汽车公司）购买欧蓝德JE3A2693的小型越野客车一辆，价款249800元。中进汽车公司为王毅代缴车辆购置税22700元、车船税225元、机动车交通事故强制险保险费1100元、机动车辆综合险保险费10752元，共计34777元，收取上牌费900元。2013年10月15日，中进汽车公司向王毅交付车辆。2014年2月7日，中进汽车公司通知王毅该车辆应当被召回。2013年6月4日，三菱汽车销售（中国）有限公司发布召回部分进口欧蓝德汽车公告，召回时间为2013年6月5日至2014年6月4日，召回车辆范围包括王毅所购车辆。缺陷情况系供应商制造原因，导致电动动力转向控制组件的监视内部微机电源的元件出现故障。可能出现电源监视线路错误启动等后果，存在安全隐患。维修措施为更换电动动力转向控制组件（EPS-ECU）。王毅遂向天津市滨海新区人民法院起诉，请求退还汽车，中进汽车公司返还购车款285477元，三倍赔偿购车款749400元。

（二）裁判结果

一审法院认为，本案中生产者已经通过媒体发布公告的方式向公众告知了部分进口欧蓝德汽车存在产品缺陷应当召回的事实及需要召回的范围，因此诉争车辆属于应被召回车辆一事属于已向公众告知的事项，不存在隐瞒的情形。另外，根据生产者发布的召回公告，诉争车辆的缺陷可以通过更换改进工艺的电动动力转向控制组件（EPS-ECU）的方式予以消除，且事后中进汽车公司主动告知王毅诉争车辆尚未消除缺陷，需更换组件，故中进汽车公司对此不存在隐瞒的故意。综上，中进汽车公司的行为不构成欺诈，故判决驳回王毅的诉讼请求。王毅以原判决认定事实不清，适用法律错误为由提起上诉。天津市第二中级人民法院二审认为，中进汽车公司作为经营者，对车辆是否属于被召回的范围应当知道，其抗辩对涉案车辆召回不知情的理由不能成立。中进汽车公司隐瞒车辆瑕疵而销售，构成商业欺诈。本案车辆销售行为发生在《消费者权益保护法》修订前，故中进汽车公司应当承担“退一赔一”的法律责任。该院二审判决：撤销本案一审判决，王毅向中进汽车公司退车，中进汽车公司退还王毅购车款249800元，加倍赔偿王毅249800元，并赔偿王毅车辆购置税等共计35677元。

catalogue

1. Yin Chongyi v. Wuhan Hanfu Supermarket Co., Ltd. Hanyang Branch Sales Contract Dispute Case

2. Liu Xin v. Shaanxi Lixin Pharmacy Sales Contract Dispute Case

3. Wang Xin v. Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd. Online Shopping Contract Dispute Case

4. Li Xiaodong v. Jiuxian.com E-commerce Co., Ltd. Online Purchase Contract Dispute Case

5. Yang Bo v. Bayannur City Hezhong Yuantong Express Co., Ltd. Ulat Front Banner Branch and Fu Yingchun Online Shopping Contract Dispute Case

6. Fan Jianwu v. Guangdong Provincial Cultural Relics Headquarters Sales Contract Dispute Case

7. Yu Aoyong v. Bi Liping, Product Seller Liability Dispute Case

8. Wang v. Beijing Yiluyou Baby Products Co., Ltd. Service Contract Dispute Case

9. Wu Junmei v. Zhejiang Suning Yunshang Trading Co., Ltd. Sales Contract Dispute Case

10. Wang Yi v. Tianjin Zhongjin Peixian Automobile Service Co., Ltd. Sales Contract Dispute Case

1、 Yin Chongyi v. Wuhan Hanfu Supermarket Co., Ltd. Hanyang Branch Sales Contract Dispute Case

——Selling expired food by an operator is an act of knowingly selling food that is unsafe. Consumers have the right to request a refund of the purchase price and pay ten times the price as compensation.

（1） Basic facts of the case

On June 17, 2013, Yin Chongyi paid 251 yuan to Hanyang Branch of Wuhan Hanfu Supermarket Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hanfu Supermarket) to buy a box of Taohuaji ass hide glue cake. The production date on the food packaging was August 7, 2012, and the warranty period was 10 months. After purchasing, Yin Chongyi discovered that the food had passed its shelf life and requested a return from the supermarket without any results. He then filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Hanyang District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province, requesting Hanfu Supermarket to refund the payment of 251 yuan, ten times the compensation of 2510 yuan, pay transportation fees of 3000 yuan, and mental comfort money of 3000 yuan.

（2） Judgment results

The first instance court held that the shopping invoice provided by Yin Chongyi can confirm the establishment of a sales contract relationship with Hanfu Supermarket. The determination of whether the Taohua Ji'a Jiaogao, which Yin Chongyi now holds and on which to file a lawsuit, is the commodity sold by Hanfu Supermarket at that time. Firstly, Yin Chongyi provided physical goods and shopping invoices, fulfilling the burden of proof to prove the consumer's shopping. Yin Chongyi reported the situation to Hanfu Supermarket on the day of purchase and requested a return. However, both parties failed to negotiate and appealed to the Hanyang Branch of Wuhan Administration for Industry and Commerce on the same day. Yin Chongyi promptly reported product quality issues. Although Hanfu Supermarket argued that the expired Taohua Ji'a Jiaogao that Yin Chongyi requested to return was not provided by Hanfu Supermarket, it did not submit evidence of purchase in the same period to the court to prove that it was not sold by Hanfu Supermarket, and it was not the same batch of products as the Taohua Ji'a Jiaogao provided by Yin Chongyi. Hanfu Supermarket cannot provide complete food purchase inspection records and should bear the responsibility of providing evidence. The sale of food beyond its shelf life is prohibited by law. According to Article 96 of the Food Safety Law, the first instance court ruled that Hanfu Supermarket would refund the payment of 251 yuan, compensate ten times the payment of 2510 yuan, and compensate Yin Chongyi with 500 yuan for transportation expenses. Hanfu Supermarket filed an appeal on the grounds that the facts and applicable laws were found to be incorrect in the original trial. The Wuhan Intermediate People's Court held in the second instance that Hanfu Supermarket claimed that the goods involved in this case were not sold by it, but could not provide sufficient evidence to prove it. Moreover, it had no objection to the shopping invoice issued by Yin Chongyi, so it did not support its claim. Hanfu Supermarket is prohibited by law from selling expired food and should be liable for compensation in accordance with the law. The court did not support its claim that it did not intentionally sell expired food and should not be liable for compensation, and the judgment upheld the original judgment.

2、 Liu Xin v. Shaanxi Lixin Pharmacy Sales Contract Dispute Case

——If the operator sells counterfeit health food with other batch numbers, it belongs to the sale of food that is knowingly unsafe. Consumers have the right to request a refund of the purchase price and pay compensation ten times the price.

（1） Basic facts of the case

On October 19, 2012, Liu Xin paid 280 yuan to Shaanxi Lixin Pharmacy (hereinafter referred to as Lixin Pharmacy) to purchase 4 boxes of "Quick slimming and weight loss capsules". The product packaging was marked with approval number Wei Shi Jian Zi (2003) No. 0129. Liu Xin did not unpack or consume after purchasing. After logging into the website of the National Food and Drug Administration, no relevant information about the product was found. According to the approval number Wei Shi Jian Zi (2003) No. 0129 indicated on the product packaging, it was found that the health product name approved by the Ministry of Health of the People's Republic of China under this number is "Qiao Mei Brand Weight Loss Capsule". Liu Xin believes that the health food he purchased has not been registered with the State Food and Drug Administration and should be an unqualified counterfeit product. Therefore, he sued the People's Court of Lianhu District, Xi'an City, Shaanxi Province, requesting Lixin Pharmacy to refund the purchase price of 280 yuan and compensate ten times the purchase price of 2800 yuan.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the sued court found that the "Quick slimming and weight loss capsules" sold by Lixin Pharmacy belong to health food. The approval number "Shi Wei Jian Zi (2003) No. 0129" marked on the food is inconsistent with the product name "Qiao Mei Brand Weight Loss Capsules" in the same approval number on the website of the National Food and Drug Administration. Lixin Pharmacy also failed to provide relevant proof of production permission for the product. Article 5 of the "Health Food Management Measures" stipulates that "any food claiming to have health functions must be reviewed and confirmed by the Ministry of Health"; The fifth item of Article 21 of the Measures stipulates that "the labels and instructions of health food must comply with relevant national standards and requirements, and indicate the approval number of health food". The health food "Quick Weight Loss Capsule" sold by Lixin Pharmacy is a product that falsely uses an approval number, which violates the above regulations. As a seller, Lixin Pharmacy did not review the relevant approval certificate when purchasing, causing the product to enter the circulation process. Its behavior constitutes Article 96 (2) of the Food Safety Law, which states that "selling food that knowingly does not meet food safety standards", and should be returned, refunded, and compensated in accordance with the law. The court subsequently ordered Lixin Pharmacy to refund Liu Xin the payment of 280 yuan and compensate Liu Xin ten times the purchase price of 2800 yuan. Lixin Pharmacy did not appeal.

3、 Wang Xin v. Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd. Online Shopping Contract Dispute Case

——If a seller engages in price fraud when selling goods online, inducing consumers to purchase the goods, even if the quality of the goods is qualified, consumers have the right to request the seller to "refund one, compensate three" and guarantee minimum compensation.

（1） Basic facts of the case

On April 8, 2014, Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Xiaomi Company") published an advertisement on its official website, which showed that 10400mAh mobile power supply was at a special price of 49 yuan for the "Rice noodles Festival". On that day, Wang Xin ordered the following two mobile power supplies on the website: Xiaomi Metal Mobile Power 10400mAh Silver 69 yuan, and Xiaomi Mobile Power 5200mAh Silver 39 yuan. After submitting the order, Wang Xin paid 108 yuan to Xiaomi via Alipay on the same day. On the 12th of the same month, Wang Xin received the two mobile power supplies and supporting data cables mentioned above. On the 17th of the same month, Wang Xin discovered that the original data cable using a 5200mAh mobile power supply could not fully charge the phone. Therefore, he contacted Xiaomi's customer service to request a replacement of the data cable. Xiaomi Company agrees to exchange and has received the data cable. Afterwards, Wang Xin sued the Haidian District People's Court of Beijing for price fraud committed by Xiaomi Company, requesting the revocation of the online shopping contract. Wang Xin returned two sets of mobile power supplies involved in the case to Xiaomi Company, and requested that Xiaomi Company: 1. compensate Wang Xin with 500 yuan; 2. Refund Wang Xin's purchase price of 108 yuan; 3. Pay Wang Xin a courier fee of 15 yuan; 4. Compensate Wang Xin for 100 yuan in transportation, printing, and photocopying fees.

（2） Judgment results

The first instance court held that the online shopping contract involved in the case was valid, and Xiaomi's actions did not constitute fraud. Wang Xin's litigation claim lacked sufficient evidence, so the court ruled to dismiss his litigation claim. Wang Xin objected and appealed to the First Intermediate People's Court of Beijing. He said that Xiaomi Company had advertised for 49 yuan for the Rice noodles Festival, a power supply, at the original price of 69 yuan a week in advance, to deceive consumers into queuing for rush buying. The advertising was still there on the day of sale, but the goods were sold for 69 yuan. Xiaomi Company set a regular rush buying for online shopping, which lasted less than 20 minutes. Its behavior constituted price fraud. The second instance court held that the online shopping contract involved in the case is valid, and consumers have the right to fair trading and the right to know about the goods. Due to the unique nature of Xiaomi's online flash sale sales method, the advertisement is directly linked to the product's flash sale interface and consumers need to make a purchase intention in a short period of time. Wang Xin agreed that the advertising price of Xiaomi Company was 49 yuan, so he made a statement of intention to rush to buy on the "Rice noodles Festival" day. His real intention expressed that the price should be 49 yuan. However, according to the order details on Xiaomi website, Wang Xin placed an order at 14:30 on April 8, 2014, and the price of 10400mAh mobile power supply in the order was 69 yuan instead of 49 yuan. Xiaomi Company now acknowledges that there is an error in the display of the Xiaomi Mall activity interface, and there is a discrepancy between the advertising price and the actual settlement price. However, the explanation is that there is an error in the computer backend system. Since Xiaomi Company did not make a statement to consumers on the Internet about its background errors afterwards, and it had no evidence to prove that its computer background failed on the day of the "Rice noodles Festival", the court of second instance found that Xiaomi Company intended to defraud consumers. Wang Xin's request for cancellation of the contract due to fraud in 10400mAh mobile power supply was reasonable, and the court of second instance allowed both parties to the other power supply to agree to terminate the contract. Based on this, the court ruled in accordance with the law that Wang Xin would return the two mobile power supplies mentioned above to Xiaomi Company. Xiaomi Company would provide a minimum compensation of 500 yuan to Wang Xin, refund Wang Xin the payment of 108 yuan, and reject Wang Xin's other litigation claims.

4、 Li Xiaodong v. Jiuxian.com E-commerce Co., Ltd. Online Purchase Contract Dispute Case

——E-commerce, as a seller, engages in fraudulent behavior during the process of using others' networks to sell goods. If a compensation agreement is reached with consumers after the transaction but is not fulfilled, consumers have the right to request the seller to bear compensation liability in accordance with the agreement.

（1） Basic facts of the case

On August 9, 2012, Li Xiaodong purchased six bottles of Baijiu sold by Jiuxian.com E-commerce Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jiuxian.com) on Taobao.com. The online commodity page described Baijiu as a Chinese famous brand, Wuliangye (1618) 500ml special price, with a transaction price of 8349 yuan. After the completion of the transaction, Li Xiaodong inquired the above web page and found that the "special price" and "original price" of the Baijiu he bought in the Taobao shop of Jiuxian Company were equal, so he reported to the Beijing Price Reporting Center. Afterwards, Li Xiaodong and Jiuxian Company reached a "Memorandum of Understanding", agreeing that both parties should complete the return and refund procedures within 5 days after the agreement is signed. Jiuxian Company will compensate Li Xiaodong with 8394 yuan, and if one party breaches the contract, they will bear a penalty of 20% of the total amount. Due to the failure of Jiuxian Company to fulfill the agreement, Li Xiaodong filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Binhai County, Jiangsu Province, requesting Jiuxian Company to compensate 8394 yuan and bear a penalty of 1678.8 yuan.

（2） Judgment results

The sued court believes that when conducting transactions between operators and consumers, they should follow the principles of voluntariness, equality, fairness, honesty and credibility. During the transaction process, operators should provide consumers with true information about the goods and shall not make false advertising. In the online transaction process of this case, Jiuxian Company misled consumers by selling discounted products online, which constitutes fraud and should bear legal responsibility in accordance with the law. During the process of requesting compensation, Li Xiaodong reached an understanding agreement with Jiuxian Company. Due to Jiuxian Company's failure to fulfill its obligations as stipulated in the agreement, its behavior has constituted a breach of contract and should be held liable for breach of contract. Therefore, Li Xiaodong's request for Jiuxian Company to fulfill its compensation obligations in accordance with the agreement is in compliance with legal provisions and should be supported in accordance with the law. If Jiuxian Company refuses to appear in court without justifiable reasons and is lawfully summoned by the court to participate in the lawsuit, it shall be deemed to have waived its right to defense and shall bear the adverse legal consequences against it. The sued court ruled that Jiuxian Company should pay Li Xiaodong compensation of 8394 yuan and bear a penalty of 1678.8 yuan, totaling 10072.8 yuan. Jiuxian Company did not appeal.

5、 Yang Bo v. Bayannur City Hezhong Yuantong Express Co., Ltd. Ulat Front Banner Branch and Fu Yingchun Online Shopping Contract Dispute Case

——If the goods purchased online by consumers are falsely claimed by others during the delivery process, and consumers claim that the seller and the delivery party jointly bear the liability for compensation, according to the principle of contract relativity, the seller should bear the liability for compensation.

（1） Basic facts of the case

On March 19, 2013, Yang Bo purchased a computer worth 15123 yuan from the electronic business department established by Fu Yingchun through online shopping. After placing the order, the payment and mailing fee of 95 yuan were fully paid to Yingchun. On the same day, Fu Yingchun entrusted Bayannur City Hezhong Yuantong Express Co., Ltd. Ulat Front Banner Branch (hereinafter referred to as the express company) to deliver the goods. The goods arrived at the delivery location on the 24th of the same month and were falsely claimed by someone else. For this reason, Yang Bo repeatedly requested to pay Yingchun for delivery, but failed. He then filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Wulatqian Banner, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, requesting that the express delivery company and pay Yingchun compensation for their computer payment of 15123 yuan and mailing fee of 95 yuan.

（2） Judgment results

The sued court held that Yang Bo purchased the goods from Fu Yingchun through online shopping and paid the payment and mailing fee to Fu Yingchun. Fu Yingchun, as the shipper, entrusted the courier company to deliver the goods to Yang Bo, forming an online shopping contract relationship and a transportation contract relationship, respectively. From the perspective of the respective rights and obligations of the parties involved, in the online shopping contract, Yang Bo had already paid the payment and mailing fees through online banking, fulfilling the payment obligations of the consumer. Fu Yingchun, as the seller, had the obligation to deliver to Yang Bo according to the contract. Although Fu Yingchun has handed over the goods to the courier company for shipment, during the transportation process, the courier company's staff did not verify the identity information of the other party before handing over the goods to others for signature. The seller, Fu Yingchun, has not yet fulfilled the obligation to deliver the goods, which constitutes a breach of contract. Therefore, Yang Bo's request to pay Yingchun compensation for the paid computer fee of 15123 yuan and the mailing fee of 95 yuan should be supported. According to the principle of relativity of the contract, the contract only binds the contracting parties. If the courier company hands over the goods to someone else by mistake, it belongs to the transportation relationship between Fu Yingchun and the courier company. The express delivery company should not be liable for compensation in this case, so we do not support Yang Bo's request that the express delivery company should be liable for compensation. The sued court ruled to pay Yingchun compensation of 15123 yuan for the computer payment and 95 yuan for the mailing fee that Yang Bo had already paid. Neither party appealed.

6、 Fan Jianwu v. Guangdong Provincial Cultural Relics Headquarters Sales Contract Dispute Case

——The seller sells ordinary pomegranate jade bracelets as jade bracelets, which constitutes fraud against the consumer. The consumer has the right to request a return from the seller, and the seller refunds the payment to the consumer and pays three times the price as compensation.

（1） Basic facts of the case

On April 17, 2014, Fan Jianwu purchased a bracelet at Guangdong Provincial Cultural Relics Store (hereinafter referred to as Cultural Relics Store) for 17100 yuan. The store issued an invoice to him, stating that the product was "yqgda-0765 Jade Bracelet", with an amount of 17100 yuan. On the 24th of the same month, Fan Jianwu went to the store again to request a replacement invoice. The store then withdrew the original invoice and issued a new one for Fan Jianwu. The invoice stated the product as "yqgda-0765 Jade Bracelet". The purchased bracelet has been identified by the Guangdong Institute of Geological Sciences as a "water calcium aluminum garnet bracelet". At the request of the store, both parties jointly entrusted the Guangdong Provincial Jewelry, Jade, and Precious Metal Testing Center to re evaluate the bracelet, and the appraisal result was "pomegranate jade bracelet". Fan Jianwu believed that the cultural relics headquarters had sold ordinary garnet bracelets as jade bracelets, passing them off as genuine, which constituted fraud. Therefore, he sued the People's Court of Yuexiu District, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, requesting the cultural relics headquarters to refund him 17100 yuan and compensate him 51300 yuan in accordance with the law.

（2） Judgment results

The first instance court held that the sales invoice issued by the cultural relics headquarters to Fan Jianwu showed "jade bracelet", but it was identified as "pomegranate jade bracelet". Although the store argued that it was after Fan Jianwu's repeated pleadings that it changed the first invoice item "jade bracelet" to "jade bracelet", based on the recorded evidence provided by Fan Jianwu, the store claimed that the bracelet it sold to Fan Jianwu was made of jade and explicitly informed Fan Jianwu that the jade bracelet purchased was made of jade. The store, as an operator, passed off the "pomegranate jade bracelet" as a "jade bracelet" and sold it to Fan Jianwu, passing it off as genuine, which can be considered as fraudulent consumers. The first instance court, in accordance with Article 55 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, ruled that Fan Jianwu would return the purchased bracelet to the cultural relics headquarters, and the store would refund Fan Jianwu 17100 yuan in payment; The cultural relics headquarters compensated Fan Jianwu with three times the price of the bracelet, totaling 51300 yuan. The Cultural Relics Headquarters refused to accept and filed an appeal on the grounds that there was an error in the original determination of facts and the application of law. The Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, held in the second instance that based on the invoice issued by the Cultural Relics Headquarters and the conversation recording provided by Fan Jianwu, it has been fully confirmed that the bracelet sold to Fan Jianwu was "jade bracelet". Now, the bracelet has been jointly entrusted by both parties for appraisal and has been determined to be "pomegranate jade bracelet", There is a significant difference in the quality of the goods claimed by the cultural relics headquarters during the sales process, so the original trial court determined that their behavior constitutes fraud and is not inappropriate. The cultural relics headquarters claimed that the disputed bracelet had cultural value and that its behavior did not constitute fraud. Fan Jianwu did not suffer any losses, and the reasons were not valid. Based on this, the court upheld the original judgment.

7、 Yu Aoyong v. Bi Liping, Product Seller Liability Dispute Case

——If the operator falsely promotes their health products to induce consumers to purchase, which constitutes commercial fraud, consumers have the right to request the operator to refund the purchase price and pay compensation three times the purchase price.

（1） Basic facts of the case

On April 16, 2014, Yu Aoyong purchased two sets of Shuangning brand functional health mattress with a specification of 2 meters from Bi Liping for 14100 yuan × 1.5 meters × 0.12 meters. After use, the mattress does not have the functions of preventing cancer, inhibiting cancer cell growth, and treating and preventing diseases promoted by Bi Liping. Therefore, Yu Aoyong filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Weihai Torch High tech Industrial Development Zone in Shandong Province, claiming that Bi Liping's actions constituted fraud against him. He requested that Bi Liping be ordered to refund the purchase price of 28200 yuan and compensate him with 84600 yuan three times the purchase price.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the sued court found that Bi Liping recognized the facts claimed by Yu Aoyong, and her actions constituted commercial fraud. She also acknowledged that the plaintiff should return the payment and pay three times the compensation according to the plaintiff's lawsuit request. In accordance with Article 55 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, the court ordered Bi Liping to refund the purchase price of 28200 yuan to Aoyong and compensate 84600 yuan, which is three times the purchase price of Aoyong. Bi Liping did not appeal.

8、 Wang v. Beijing Yiluyou Baby Products Co., Ltd. Service Contract Dispute Case

——Consumers have the right to request the termination of the contract and a refund of the prepaid card balance if their card cannot be used due to the operator not operating at their original address during the consumption process.

（1） Basic facts of the case

On September 3, 2013, Baby Wang experienced swimming once at Beijing Yiluyou Baby Products Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yiluyou Company), and his mother paid a deposit of 100 yuan to Yiluyou Company to apply for a swimming card. On the 5th of the same month, his mother paid the remaining balance of 2498 yuan (from September 5th, 2013 to September 5th, 2014) to Yilu You Company for 40 swimming card applications. After applying for the card, Wang swam once and did not experience any crying. He cried during the third and fourth swimming sessions. In the second instance, Yilu You Company no longer operates at its original address, and Wang's swimming card can no longer be used. Wang requested to terminate the contract with Yilu You Company and refund the remaining amount, citing that the services provided by Yilu You Company did not comply with the contract and Wang was unable to achieve the purpose of the contract. However, he was rejected and filed a lawsuit with the Fengtai District People's Court of Beijing, requesting Yilu You Company to refund his deposit of 100 yuan and the balance of his swimming card of 2387.55 yuan.

（2） Judgment results

The first instance court held that the service contract orally concluded between Wang and Yiluyou Company was valid. The business scope, address, and invoice issues of Yilu You Company, as claimed by Wang, are not related to the purpose of the contract; The alleged violation of relevant management regulations by Yilu You Company and the provision of services that do not comply with the agreement, as well as insufficient evidence, cannot prove that its contractual purpose cannot be achieved and there is a causal relationship with the actions of Yilu You Company. Therefore, the judgment rejects Wang's lawsuit request. Wang filed an appeal claiming that Yilu You Company had breached the contract and the contract should be terminated. The Beijing Second Intermediate People's Court held in the second instance that during the second instance of this case, Yilu You Company, after being lawfully summoned, did not appear in court to respond to the lawsuit, nor did it operate in its place of operation and registration, resulting in the inability of Wang to continue using the swimming card he purchased, and the fact that the contract could no longer be fulfilled. Wang's appeal for termination of the contract is in line with the situation of contract termination stipulated in Article 93 of the Contract Law. Based on this, the court ruled to revoke the first instance judgment, terminate the service contract between Wang and Yilu You Company, and Yilu You Company will refund Wang's swimming card fee of 2262.65 yuan and a deposit of 100 yuan.

9、 Wu Junmei v. Zhejiang Suning Yunshang Trading Co., Ltd. Sales Contract Dispute Case

——If the seller installs the air conditioning unit they sell according to the agreement, and safety hazards occur during the installation process, causing losses to consumers, they shall bear corresponding compensation responsibilities.

（1） Basic facts of the case

On April 30, 2008, Wu Junmei purchased a large gold medal air conditioner from Zhejiang Suning Yunshang Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Suning Company) for a total price of 8051 yuan. Suning Company issued an installation order to Wu Junmei and arranged for someone to install an air conditioner at Wu Junmei's house on May 11, 2008. In August 2013, the floors and walls of Wu Junmei's living room and adjacent rooms were eroded by water. After inspection and confirmation by the after-sales personnel of Dajin Air Conditioning, it was found that the wall hole where the air conditioning unit drainage pipe passed through was not blocked, and the water leakage was caused by a mouse biting the wall hole drainage pipe. Wu Junmei repaired the damaged floor, walls, and related areas, but the repair costs were not compensated. Wu Junmei then filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Xiaoshan District, Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, requesting Suning Company to compensate him with a loss of 14104 yuan and pay a mental injury compensation of 10000 yuan.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the sued court found that the sales contract relationship between Wu Junmei and Suning Company is established and legally valid. Air conditioning units are a type of refrigeration equipment that requires high installation standards. As a seller, Suning Company should not only provide machines and equipment that meet quality requirements, but also provide installation services that meet the requirements of the standards. The air conditioner purchased by Wu Junmei, whether actually installed by the manufacturer or by the seller, cannot exclude the seller's obligation as the counterparty to the contract to ensure the normal use of the air conditioner and not cause personal or property damage. Suning Company did not fulfill its reasonable and prudent duty of care, and failed to ensure that the wall holes through which the air conditioning drainage pipes passed were sealed, causing mice to enter the wall holes and bite off the drainage pipes, causing water leakage and causing damage to the interior walls and floors. Its failure to properly fulfill its contractual obligations has a causal relationship with the result of the damage, and it is responsible for the losses suffered by Wu Junmei as a result. As a consumer, Wu Junmei requested Suning Company to compensate for the costs incurred in repairing the floor and walls, and the hospital provided support. Wu Junmei's claims for work delay fees and compensation for mental damage lack basis and are not supported by the court. The court ruled that Suning Company compensated Wu Junmei with 12175 yuan for the actual repair cost. Suning Company did not appeal.

10、 Wang Yi v. Tianjin Zhongjin Peixian Automobile Service Co., Ltd. Sales Contract Dispute Case

——The operator's sale of cars that have been announced for recall constitutes commercial fraud. Consumers have the right to request a refund of the purchased car, and the operator shall refund the purchase price and compensate twice the purchase price.

（1） Basic facts of the case

On September 28, 2013, Wang Yi purchased a small off-road passenger car from Tianjin Zhongjin Peixian Automobile Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhongjin Automobile Company), named Oulande JE3A2693, for a price of 249800 yuan. Zhongjin Automobile Company paid a vehicle purchase tax of 22700 yuan, a vehicle and vessel tax of 225 yuan, a compulsory insurance premium of 1100 yuan for motor vehicle traffic accidents, and a comprehensive insurance premium of 10752 yuan for motor vehicles on behalf of Wang Yi, totaling 34777 yuan. The registration fee was 900 yuan. On October 15, 2013, Zhongjin Automobile Company delivered the vehicle to Wang Yi. On February 7, 2014, Zhongjin Automobile Company notified Wang Yi that the vehicle should be recalled. On June 4, 2013, Mitsubishi Automobile Sales (China) Co., Ltd. issued a recall notice for some imported Outlander cars, covering the period from June 5, 2013 to June 4, 2014. The scope of the recalled vehicles includes those purchased by Wang Yi. The defect was caused by the supplier's manufacturing, resulting in a malfunction of the internal microcomputer power supply component in the monitoring of the electric power steering control component. There may be consequences such as incorrect startup of the power monitoring circuit, posing a safety hazard. The maintenance measure is to replace the electric power steering control component (EPS ECU). Wang Yisui filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Binhai New Area in Tianjin, requesting the return of the car. Zhongjin Automobile Company refunded the purchase price of 285477 yuan and tripled the compensation of 749400 yuan.

（2） Judgment results

The first instance court held that in this case, the producer had already informed the public through media announcements about the fact that some imported Outlander cars had product defects that should be recalled and the scope of the recall. Therefore, the fact that the disputed vehicle belongs to the vehicle that should be recalled belongs to the matter that has been notified to the public, and there is no concealment. In addition, according to the recall notice issued by the manufacturer, the defects of the disputed vehicle can be eliminated by replacing the improved electric power steering control component (EPS ECU). Afterwards, Zhongjin Automobile Company proactively informed Wang Yi that the defect of the disputed vehicle has not been eliminated and the component needs to be replaced. Therefore, Zhongjin Automobile Company has no intention of concealing this. In summary, the actions of Zhongjin Automobile Company do not constitute fraud, so the judgment rejects Wang Yi's lawsuit request. Wang Yi filed an appeal on the grounds that the original judgment found the facts unclear and the application of the law was incorrect. The Tianjin Second Intermediate People's Court held in the second instance that as an operator, Zhongjin Automobile Company should know whether the vehicle belongs to the scope of recall, and its defense of not knowing about the recall of the involved vehicle cannot be established. Zhongjin Automobile Company conceals vehicle defects and sells them, which constitutes commercial fraud. The vehicle sales behavior in this case occurred before the revision of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, so Zhongjin Automobile Company should bear the legal responsibility of "one refund, one compensation". The second instance judgment of the court: revoked the first instance judgment of this case, Wang Yi returned the car to Zhongjin Automobile Company, and Zhongjin Automobile Company refunded Wang Yi the purchase price of 249800 yuan, doubled the compensation of 249800 yuan, and compensated Wang Yi with a total of 35677 yuan, including vehicle purchase tax.