In daily consumption, consumers can often see accurate to the corner and minutes of the bill, in the electronic payment mode, the mobile phone can be paid with a sweep, but some merchants take a "rounding" method when collecting money, causing consumer disputes. Recently, in a catering service contract dispute heard by the Liangxi District People's Court in Wuxi, because the hot pot restaurant charged 0.44 yuan more when charging, it was sued by the consumer Wu Mou (pseudonym) to the court.
Relevant billing documents
Was overcharged by $0.44
Consumers are not happy
In January this year, a hot pot restaurant in Wuxi opened, and Wu wanted to try it. During the period, Wu spent a total of 357.56 yuan. At the time of checkout, Wu bought 3 coupons worth 50 yuan, and the store gave another 24 yuan discount, and Wu left the hot pot shop after paying another 184 yuan.
After arriving home, Wu took out a small ticket to check, found that something was wrong, the small ticket showed 357.56 yuan, deducting the group purchase coupon and the preferential amount of the merchant, he should actually pay 183.56 yuan, but he paid 184 yuan, and the merchant overpaid 0.44 yuan. Wu mou believes that according to the usual consumption habits, merchants will generally go to zero to collect, and this hot pot shop is good, actually "five in", overcharging money, which obviously violates the consumer's right to know, violates the principle of fair trade, and is suspected of price fraud.
Wu sued the hot pot restaurant to the court, demanding that the hot pot restaurant refund the meal fee of 334 yuan and triple the compensation, as well as the cost of lost work, and posted a written apology at the door.
The hot pot restaurant did not expect to get into a lawsuit because of this 0.44 yuan. The hot pot restaurant said that the rounding calculation method is a problem with the system setting, and after Wu reflected the situation, he had communicated with the headquarters and rectified the system. At the same time, Wu mou bought three vouchers of 19.9 yuan to 50 yuan at that time, but in fact, the meal fee was only 243.7 yuan.
Is it fraudulent?
The court judgment does not exist
After trial, the court held that the focus of the dispute in the case was whether the "rounding" method adopted by the hot pot restaurant caused the overcharging of Wu's 0.44 yuan was price gouging.
The condition for constituting fraud is that the business operator's unambiguous price causes the consideration of the goods paid by the consumer to be significantly higher than the price of the goods or services received. Or deliberately informing false circumstances or deliberately concealing the true circumstances, inducing the parties to make a wrong expression of intent, may be found to be fraudulent. However, Wu's situation is that after the hot pot shop consumes, according to the small ticket, he knows the price of his consumption, and knows that the hot pot shop charges 0.44 yuan more, and the hot pot shop charges 0.44 yuan more, which is not charged by taking price fraud.
In summary, there is no fraud in the behavior of hot pot restaurants. The court finally ruled that the hot pot restaurant refunded 0.44 yuan to Wu.
Merchants should pay attention to detail
Standardize business conduct
Article 13 of the Price Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "Business operators selling, purchasing, and providing services shall clearly mark the prices in accordance with the provisions of the competent government pricing departments, indicating the relevant circumstances of the commodities' name, place of origin, specifications, grades, pricing units, prices or service items, and charging standards." Business operators shall not sell goods at a price other than the listed price, and shall not charge any unspecified fees. ”
This provision requires business operators to clearly mark prices in the process of selling, acquiring goods and providing services, and targets the fraudulent behavior of business operators in the process of selling, acquiring goods and providing services, and not selling or purchasing goods and providing service prices according to the actual price. Wu's situation obviously does not belong to the above situation.
The judge who undertook the case said: Although the matter of 0.44 yuan is small, the system is artificially set, and the "rounding" especially the "five in" affects the consumer's consumption experience, and eventually leads to litigation. Merchants should enhance their sense of self-discipline, standardize business behavior, actively build a harmonious relationship with consumers, and create a good consumer environment. At the same time, consumers should pay attention to retaining shopping receipts and payment vouchers, and in case of similar circumstances, they can negotiate with merchants, and if the consultation fails, they can complain to the relevant units to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests.
Correspondent Xia Qian, Yangtze Evening News/Purple Cow News reporter Zhang Jianbo
Source: Yang Eye