Qu Jing, a news commentator

Hu Zhihong, 43, opened a sausage shop in Wuhan. On February 11 and 12, 2121, Zhao Peng came to his shop twice in succession and bought 186 Jin of sausage. Two days later, Zhao Peng came to the store to find Hu Zhihong, claiming that the vacuum-packed sausage was not labeled with the production license number, and belonged to the "three noes" product, demanding compensation and complaining to the industrial and commercial department. In June 2122, Zhao Peng sued Hu Zhihong in Wuhan _ Kou District Court, demanding a refund of 7341 yuan and a punitive damages of 73411 yuan on the grounds that consumers' rights and interests were damaged. In October, 2122, after two trials, the court rejected Zhao Peng's claim.

combing through the whole incident, we can basically see that Zhao Peng's claim for compensation is not an act of defending the rights of ordinary consumers after discovering their rights and interests, but a deliberate "professional counterfeiting" by looking at the legal loopholes in food business in family workshops. The initiative to ask for vacuum packaging is to let Hu Zhihong's own canned sausages be recognized as "pre-packaged food" for pre-packaging and weighing. It is also a routine used by many "professional counterfeiters" to buy a small amount first and see what it looks like, and then buy a large amount after making sure that you can claim.

Now Hu Zhihong has put yellow labels on all the packages.

It has been controversial for many years whether "professional counterfeiters" are good at using the law and courageously safeguarding consumers' rights and interests, or extorting money in the name of counterfeiting and disrupting market order. Many times, we can't generalize, and we need to analyze specific cases. In this kind of litigation, although the plaintiff seems to be legally justified, it is often not supported by public opinion because it deviates from common sense.

China's food culture is profound, and various folk foods are colorful, some of which have become folk customs and traditions, and have become "non-legacy". Many of these foods, like canned sausages, are seasonal and difficult to produce in a long-term and standardized way. But every Chinese New Year holiday, it is the food that every household wants to hoard. Merchants who manage this kind of food are often diligent craftsmen who make word of mouth with their hands and win trust. People who buy this kind of food are often more tolerant. As long as the ingredients are delicious, the quality is guaranteed and the packaging is how, people often don't care too much. Therefore, it is considered as "finding fault with others" and a very natural and simple social mentality to sue for compensation with such a problem.

Under the background of ruling the country according to law, everything must run on the track of rule of law. The Food Safety Law has clear provisions on food packaging. Operators are caught with loopholes, and buyers claim that their rights and interests are damaged. Then, the court's ruling has undoubtedly become the most authoritative standard of injustice, which is not only of great significance to Hu Zhihong, but also a reference for many merchants who also operate this kind of homemade food. If such a situation can be claimed successfully, it will be a reference. Can this business go on?

Hu Zhihong sells handmade sausages in a store

And this court decision shows respect for common sense. The court found that sausages belong to food produced and sold on the spot, which is generally called "bulk food". Vacuum packaging is to meet the requirements of customers, not prepackaged, and does not belong to prepackaged foods. At the same time, the plaintiff has no evidence to prove that there are other food safety problems in the sausage purchased, or that the sausage was actually damaged because of eating it. Therefore, the claim is unfounded and dismissed, which is reasonable and reasonable, which makes people happy and prevents the law from becoming a tool to "cheat money" and protects the good knowledge of society.

In recent years, there have often been cases in which this kind of workshop food has been sued for "three noes". Previously, the case of "Chongqing woman was claimed 11 times for selling 151 bowls of cooked meat" caused an uproar because the court ruled that the seller should pay 11 times compensation, because the judgment was in line with the legal provisions, but it might be inconsistent with common sense. In people's impression, family food workshops are not large-scale manufacturers, with limited output and relatively fixed customer base, and this homely taste is entrusted with many people's feelings and mourning, with grassroots feelings. Therefore, in the judgment of similar cases, we should judge the category attributes and applicable legal provisions of the food involved more carefully, and strengthen the efforts to restore the facts and explain the law. Whether it is compensation or not, it must be valid and convincing.

The law has its limitations, especially in the rapidly changing world, the speed of social development is often faster than that of legal writing, so the judiciary should pay more attention to the application of the law, and link the facts of the case with the legal provisions on the basis of respecting common sense. Only by respecting common sense, following objective laws, listening to and responding to the people's reasonable expectations of the law can the justice of justice be more widely recognized and people's belief in the rule of law be more firm.