"How can I eat if you don't give me tableware?" In Xiamen, Fujian, when a man and his girlfriend went to a restaurant for dinner, they were charged 2 yuan's tableware fee. The man thought that the restaurant should provide tableware for free, so he took the restaurant to court after the dispute failed. The man Zhang Moumou was a lawyer. On the day of the incident, Zhang Moumou and his girlfriend went to the restaurant for dinner together, but it was never expected that 2 yuan's money was overcharged by the restaurant when checking out. Zhang Moumou thought it was the other party's miscalculation, so he reasoned with the restaurant. Unexpectedly, the restaurant staff confidently said that this was the tableware fee of 2 yuan, which must be charged, and his words were full of irony. Zhang Moumou thinks that it is ok to collect tableware fees, but the restaurant staff must inform them in advance that this behavior of collecting tableware fees quietly is a typical overlord clause. So, Zhang Moumou used his legal knowledge to argue with the restaurant owner, but the restaurant owner insisted that Zhang Moumou pay 2 yuan money. Finally, after many unsuccessful arguments, Zhang Moumou had no choice but to pay 2 yuan money. After returning, Zhang Moumou became more and more angry. He thought that it was illegal for restaurants to collect tableware fees, so he took the restaurant to court. In court, Kan Kan, Zhang Moumou, expressed his views. Zhang Moumou thought: First, Article 6 of the Civil Code stipulates that civil subjects should follow the principle of fairness and reasonably determine the rights and obligations of all parties when engaging in civil activities. In this case, if you go to the restaurant to eat, you have already paid the necessary expenses for the restaurant. Then it is natural that the restaurant should use tableware for eating. The behavior of the restaurant that only enjoys rights but does not fulfill the most basic obligations obviously violates the most basic principle of fairness. Secondly, the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests stipulates that if the goods or services provided by operators are fraudulent, consumers should be compensated three times, and if they are less than 511 yuan, they will be 511 yuan. In this case, the restaurant tricked itself into using two sets of paid tableware without informing itself of the tableware charges, which is obviously fraudulent, so it should compensate 511 yuan for each set of tableware according to the above provisions, with a total compensation of RMB 1,111. 1. Undoubtedly, this is a controversial case. In daily life, many restaurants provide paid tableware to consumers. Although the price is not much, it has also aroused heated discussion among netizens. Some netizens believe that consumers and restaurants have reached a service contract relationship. When consumers pay for meals, restaurants should provide free tableware, or even pay for tableware, which should be provided for consumers to choose from, and they should not make claims arbitrarily, so that consumers can be taken for no reason! Some netizens also said that Zhang Moumou took the restaurant to court because of 2 yuan's money, presumably not for 2 yuan's money. After all, the cost of litigation and time is not limited to 2 yuan, so Zhang Moumou's behavior should be supported. 2. After review, the people's court holds that: firstly, according to China's consumer rights protection system and price management system, restaurants have the obligation to inform Zhang Moumou that "free tableware or paid tableware can be selected" and "the cost standard of each charging item" before eating. In this case, according to the facts confirmed by both parties, the restaurant has presented the bill to Zhang Moumou at the time of checkout, and there are objections to the charging items in Zhang Moumou's statement, so it should be made on the spot to facilitate the relevant departments to find out the facts and handle disputes in time. After the dispute, Zhang Moumou failed to raise an objection to the restaurant management or relevant functional departments in time, resulting in the loss of some evidence, and should bear the responsibility for failing to provide evidence. At the same time, Zhang Moumou didn't provide evidence to prove that the restaurant charged the tableware fee to consumers forcibly or concealed the tableware fee in the process of providing catering services. Therefore, Zhang Moumou's claim that Zhang's behavior of charging tableware fee constituted illegal evidence; Secondly, whether it is a fraud for restaurants to charge sanitary tableware fees when providing catering services to Zhang Moumou. Zhang Moumou dined in the restaurant, and the two sides established a catering service contract relationship. The restaurant has the legal obligation to provide Zhang Moumou with tableware that has been cleaned and disinfected free of charge and meets the relevant national hygiene standards. However, in this case, Zhang Moumou did not provide evidence to prove that the restaurant refused to provide him with the above-mentioned free tableware or misled him to use the paid tableware, and the restaurant had clearly informed him of the items and standards of the expenses when charging him the tableware fee, so the above-mentioned behavior of charging the sanitary tableware fee by the restaurant should not be considered as fraud. Therefore, Zhang Moumou's claim that the restaurant's charge for sanitary tableware is fraudulent in providing services cannot be established. On this ground, he claims that the restaurant constitutes infringement, and requires the restaurant to bear all kinds of damages and punitive damages, which lacks factual and legal basis and is not supported according to law. Finally, the court rejected Zhang Moumou's claim. 3. Finally, although Zhang Moumou lost the lawsuit, it was only because of insufficient evidence. From the judgment of the court, we can see that the judge also believes that restaurants should unconditionally provide tableware for consumers, which is not only the right of consumers, but also the obligation of restaurants. In daily life, as long as the consumer can prove that the restaurant still refuses to pay when it is clear that it wants free tableware, then it can completely win the lawsuit. So, dear readers, do you think it is reasonable to charge for tableware when eating in restaurants?