In China, according to Article 2 of the Consumer Rights Law, people who "buy, use goods or receive services for daily consumption" are defined as consumers. Compared with the definition of international consumer protection convention, the definition of consumer in China lacks "there must be a commodity provider engaged in legitimate business", but from the perspective of the whole law, this is self-evident. What is widely debated is not whether there is a "commodity supplier engaged in legitimate business", but the purpose of buying goods. Some people think that the purpose of consumption should be strictly limited to "daily consumption needs", while others think that as long as the goods are purchased according to normal procedures, they should be recognized as consumers.
According to the above three criteria, let's see if Mr. Wang is a legitimate consumer.
As far as consumers are concerned, Mr. Wang is a natural person who buys goods for personal purposes; From the supplier's point of view, all the goods he bought were in large department stores; But the problem lies in the use of the goods he consumes. According to the third criterion, goods or services must be for personal use or consumption. Why emphasize "intentional" use or consumption? That's because ..... (I haven't figured it out yet, but I'm looking up the information) and Mr. Wang openly declared that he "bought fake goods with knowledge", and then made a claim on this basis, obviously not for personal consumption, which obviously exceeded the definition of consumer stipulated by law. This is the reason why he lost many battles in China.
However, the problem is not limited to this. In practice, it is difficult to determine the purpose of individuals buying goods. When a person walks into a shopping mall and pays for goods, it is generally regarded as the normal use of the buyer. Generally speaking, he has constituted a consumer. As for the quantity of goods, it does not constitute a legal reason to deny becoming a normal consumer, which is also the reason why Mr. Wang often wins the case.
In addition, in the definition of consumers in real life, there is still confusion whether "public consumption" and "unit consumption" belong to consumers. No matter from the perspective of international conventions or China laws, the source of payment is not investigated when consumers are identified; Regarding unit consumption, although there is no explicit provision in China, the Convention obviously excludes organizations from the scope of consumers. Because consumers' rights and interests are protected as an important human right, they can only be targeted at natural persons, not institutions. If it is an organization's purchase behavior, contract law, product quality law and civil law shall apply.
Please help me to analyze why China, French and international conventions all restricted the purpose of consumers at the beginning of legislation. Do we have to aim at consumption? I didn't find any further information except some questions and objections like mine. From human feelings and common sense, the purpose of restricting consumption is somewhat puzzling. As avoir said, as long as people pay for something, they should constitute consumers, no matter what they do with it. And if it continues to be managed, it will be suspected of invading privacy.
At present, only Black's law dictionary in the United States has a more appropriate definition of consumers, that is, "consumers are people who are different from manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, and they refer to individuals who buy, use, preserve and dispose of goods and services or users of final products". This definition does not mention the purpose of consumption, but unfortunately there is no more explanation. I also heard that Shanghai's Regulations on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests openly does not support "suspected buying fake goods", which caused a lot of boos.
My personal opinion is that the focus of this case should not only be whether Wang Hai has the qualification of a consumer so that he can enjoy the Regulations on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests and get compensation. But whether the contract exists and the priority of consumer rights protection regulations and civil law regulations.
I don't know how to explain this problem in China's law, but French law stipulates that if a consumer contract is to be established, four conditions must be met; Peine nullitéde contract between the two parties, with definite or determinable and legal objectives; Public order, reason
(Legal and illegal reasons can't be effective), the ability of both parties to the contract.
In this case, first of all, the seller sold a fake, which did not meet the nullité decontrat of objet licite, and then the buyer bought it knowing that it was a fake, which did not meet the reason; Therefore, this consumption contract does not exist at all, so there is no compensation.
On the contrary, the French government stipulates that the buyers of fake goods should be punished for the same crimes as the makers of fake goods, and the state should also prosecute them. If they don't sue, they should be laughing. It's unheard of to discuss compensation.
There is also the priority between legal provisions. Is consumer protection above civil law? In this contradictory situation, the legal provisions should take precedence.
It is the law that makes people bear obligations, except the contract. If there is no agreement in the contract or the agreement is illegal, the law shall apply.
Those four conditions are not only consumer contracts, but also the conditions for the establishment of general contracts. However, here, it is not important whether Wang Hai's consumption contract is established, because there are legal provisions that can be directly quoted. As for the conflict of laws you mentioned, the principle of "special law takes precedence" should be followed here, that is, the Consumer Protection Law takes precedence over the civil law of the Basic Law.
If the contract is established from the perspective of civil law and contract law, this consumption contract is not established. It is precisely because consumers' rights and interests cannot be included in the scope of contract law that countries have special laws to protect this right, because the protection of consumers' rights and interests is not only as loose as contract breach, but also should be further protected.