After shopping at the furniture company that was exhibited in the home market, Mr. Gu found that the furniture company did not carry out taxation and industrial and commercial registration, so the prosecution of the home market did not fulfill the obligation of review. The reporter was informed yesterday that the Fengtai court ruled that the home market doubled the loss of the purchase price.
Mr. Gu claimed that on April 14, 2012, he purchased a set of furniture in the furniture showroom of the defendant's home market, signed a sales contract with the staff who claimed to be the furniture company, and paid a prepayment of 4,200 yuan, agreed in May. 14th delivery. On the day of receipt of the goods after 2 days of delay, he found that there were serious quality problems in the four-door cabinet and immediately requested a return. Since then, the mediation between the two sides has failed to reach an agreement. After inquiring, Mr. Gu found that the furniture company did not conduct industrial and commercial registration at all, did not pay tax records, and the chapter on the contract was false. Therefore, the organizer sued the organizer for home market fraud, doubled his compensation and paid a mental damage fee of 2,000 yuan.
The home market argued that the amount of furniture that Mr. Gu paid at that time was 13,200 yuan. If it constitutes fraud, it should be used as a compensation standard. Do not agree to pay the mental damages.
The court held that the furniture company operates in the store of the home market, and the home market should verify the company's industrial and commercial registration and corporate qualifications. The current home market cannot provide the relevant industrial and commercial registration procedures for the furniture company, so it can be considered that the furniture company is illegal. In concealing the above situation when signing a sales contract with Mr. Gu, there is fraud. Now that the furniture company has withdrawn from the home market, the home market should first assume the liability for compensation to Mr. Gu, and then recover the relevant responsible person. Mr. Guâ€™s claim for moral damages has no legal basis. The court first sentenced the home market to compensate Mr. Gu for double the loss of 26,400 yuan, and Mr. Gu returned the purchased furniture to the home market.
First Aid Kit,Medical Instrument Tool Case,Portable Medical Case,Sturdy Medical Instrument Case
Changzhou Junye Aluminum Case Co., Ltd , https://www.junye-box.com