Qiao Nan believes that the merchants replaced the fresh big crab claws caught by customers with other small crab claws by fraudulent means, which obviously satisfied the subjective intentional and objective behavior results and constituted the final fraudulent result.

In the face of this behavior of merchants, the above two laws have clear norms and penalties. If you need to thoroughly understand the legal nature of the incident, you should explain it from the following points.

First of all: the legal nature of merchant fraud.

As for how to distinguish whether there is fraud in merchants, it is necessary to distinguish whether there are false or improper means to make the goods change in quantity and quality eventually.

For example, the saying in our daily life is not called commercial fraud, and the stealing of crab pliers in this incident is obviously a commercial fraud, and the merchant has violated the law.

Secondly, consumers' choice of the Food Safety Law is conducive to their own compensation.

It is also an important process for consumers to choose the legal process that suits them. Take stealing crab claws as an example. Personally, I think it is more appropriate to choose the scope of the Food Safety Law to protect rights.

Because it is very important for consumers whether the stolen crab claws belong to safe food, after all, it is related to their own food safety, and another point is the intensity of compensation. Once a business is defined as illegal by the Food Safety Law, consumers can demand 10 times compensation.

Finally, the provisions in the Consumer Protection Law are also applicable to the legal rights protection of stealing crab pliers.

If the crab claws in the incident do not have food safety problems, then the behavior of the merchants still violates the Consumer Protection Law. From this perspective, consumers still have the right to demand compensation from merchants.

However, the amount of compensation needs the intervention of relevant departments, and the amount of compensation is finally determined by consumers and businesses through consultation. Different from the Food Safety Law, 10 times compensation is not supported.

Conclusion: The space is limited, so I'm here indirectly. The business in the incident must have broken the law. If you have similar questions, you can pay attention to Teacher Qiao Nan and initiate consultation.