The man's claim to the shopkeeper for ten times to buy sausages was rejected. It is gratifying that the law respects common sense.

Hu Zhihong, 43, opened a sausage shop in Wuhan. Zhao Peng came to his store twice on 202 1,1and 12, and bought sausages 186 kg. Two days later, Zhao Peng came to the store to find Hu Zhihong, claiming that the vacuum-packed sausage was not marked with the production license number and belonged to the "three noes" product, demanding compensation and complaining to the industrial and commercial department. In June, 2022, Zhao Peng sued Hu Zhihong in Wuhan _ Kou District Court, demanding to return 7340 yuan and pay 73400 yuan in punitive damages on the grounds that consumers' rights and interests were damaged. In June 2022, 1 1, the court rejected Zhao Peng's claim after two trials.

By combing the whole incident, we can basically see that Zhao Peng's claim behavior is not an ordinary consumer's right-defending behavior after discovering his own rights and interests, but a deliberate "professional counterfeiting" based on the legal loopholes in family workshops' food business. The initiative to request vacuum packaging is to let Hu Zhihong's canned sausage be recognized as "prepackaged foods" for pre-packaging and weighing. It is also a routine used by many "professional counterfeiters". First buy a small amount to 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.

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

China's food culture is extensive and profound, and all kinds of folk food are rich and colorful, some of which have become folk customs and traditions and become "non-legacy". Many of these foods, like canned sausages, are seasonal and it is difficult to standardize production for a long time. However, every Chinese New Year holiday is the food that every household wants to hoard. Businessmen who manage this kind of food are often hardworking craftsmen, who create word of mouth with their hands and win trust. People who buy this kind of food tend to be more tolerant. As long as the ingredients are delicious, the quality is guaranteed and the packaging is like, people often don't care too much. Therefore, it is considered to be "finding fault" to sue for compensation with such a problem, which is a very natural and simple social mentality.

Under the background of governing the country according to law, everything should run on the track of the rule of law. "Food Safety Law" has clear provisions on food packaging, operators have been exploited, and buyers claim that their rights and interests have been damaged. Then, the court's ruling has undoubtedly become the most authoritative unfair standard, which is of great significance not only to Hu Zhihong, but also to many businesses that also operate this kind of homemade food. If such a situation can be claimed to be successful, it will be a small enterprise. Can this business go on?

Hu Zhihong sells handmade sausages in the shop.

The judgment of this court shows respect for common sense. The court found that sausage belongs to the food produced and sold on the spot, which is generally called "bulk food". Vacuum packaging is to meet the requirements of customers, not pre-packaging, and does not belong to prepackaged foods. At the same time, the plaintiff had no evidence to prove that the purchased sausage had other food safety problems, or that the sausage was really damaged by eating. Therefore, this proposition is groundless, not adopted, reasonable and pleasant, and it also avoids the law from becoming a tool of "cheating money" and protects the good knowledge of society.

In recent years, there have often been cases of such workshop foods being sued for "three noes". Previously, the case of "Chongqing women selling 150 bowls of cooked meat was claimed 10 times" caused an uproar because the court awarded the seller 10 times compensation, because the judgment was in line with the law, but it did not necessarily conform to 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 grief, with grassroots feelings. Therefore, in the judgment of similar cases, we should judge the category attribute of the food involved and the applicable legal provisions more carefully, and strengthen the efforts to restore the facts and explain the law. Whether it is compensation or not, it must be based and convincing.

Law has its limitations, especially in the rapidly changing world, the speed of social development is often faster than the speed of legal writing, and judges should pay more attention to the application of 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 judicial justice be more widely recognized and people's belief in the rule of law be more firm.