Typical cases of food safety civil disputes 目    录 　　First, Li Mou and a shopping plaza sales contract dispute case 　　Two, Wu and an electronic business limited company sales contract dispute case 　　Third, Zheng Mou and a children's food company online shopping contract dispute 　　Iv. Wei Mou v. A technology Co., Ltd. online shopping contract dispute case 　　V. A case of online shopping contract dispute between Jiang and an information technology Co., LTD Typical cases of food safety civil disputes 　　Case 1 　　The sale of food that has passed the expiration date constitutes the operator's "knowing" 　　-- Li Mou and a shopping plaza sales contract dispute case 　　【世界十大电子游戏平台】 　　If the food has passed the shelf life indicated, but the business operator still sells it, and the consumer claims that the food business operator constitutes the business operator "knowingly" provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 148 of the Food Safety Law, the people's court shall support it。 　　【全球官网电子游戏】 　　On October 22, 2018, Li purchased a bag of "Jiaomian steamed bread" in a shopping plaza, and the outer package of the product stated that the shelf life of the food was until October 20, 2018。The food was found to be expired after purchase。Li Mou believes that the sales behavior of the shopping plaza violates the provisions of Article 34 of the Food Safety Law on the prohibition of the production and operation of the following foods, food additives and food-related products: (10) food and food additives with false production date, shelf life or beyond the shelf life，Initiate a lawsuit，Request an order to order the defendant to refund the money and give the plaintiff compensation of 1000 yuan。 　　【全球官网电子游戏】 　　The People's Court held that the plaintiff Li Mou, in order to claim the existence of a sales contract relationship with the defendant, submitted shopping invoices, photos, and physical goods to the court, and the plaintiff's evidence has formed a chain, and as a consumer, it has completed the corresponding burden of proof。According to relevant laws and regulations, food sellers have the legal obligation to ensure food safety, and should promptly clean up and remove food that does not meet safety standards。The date of sale of the goods in the present case has exceeded the shelf life, and it should be deemed that a shopping mall sold food that it knew did not meet food safety standards。According to the provisions of Article 148 of the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China，Produce food that does not meet food safety standards or knowingly trade food that does not meet food safety standards，In addition to the demand for damages，They may also demand compensation from the producer or business operator for payment of ten times the price or three times the loss;The amount of increased compensation is less than 1,000 yuan，For one thousand yuan。However, the label and instruction manual of the food have defects that do not affect food safety and do not mislead consumers。The plaintiff's claim for compensation of 1,000 yuan conforms to the provisions of the law and should be supported according to law。The judgment of a shopping plaza to refund Li Mou and pay Li Mou compensation of 1000 yuan。 　　[Relevant provisions of Judicial Interpretation] 　　Interpretation of the High People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes over Food Safety (1) 　　If a food operator has one of the following circumstances and a consumer's claim constitutes "knowing" as provided for in Article 148 of the Food Safety Law, the people's court shall support: 　　(1) Food that has passed the shelf life indicated but is still sold; 　　(2) failing to provide a legitimate source of purchase for the food sold; 　　(3) purchase goods at an obviously unreasonable low price without reasonable reason; 　　(4) failing to perform purchase inspection obligations according to law; 　　(5) falsely labeling or changing the date or batch number of food production; 　　(6) transferring, concealing or illegally destroying records of food purchase and sale or intentionally providing false information; 　　(7) Other circumstances that can be identified as knowing。 　　Case 2 　　The business operator fails to fulfill the obligation of purchase inspection according to law 　　Constitutes "knowledge" of the operator 　　-- Wu and an e-commerce limited company sales contract dispute case 　　【世界十大电子游戏平台】 　　A business operator is negligent in fulfilling the obligation of purchase inspection, that is, selling food that does not meet the safety standards, which is an act of operating food that knowingly does not meet the food safety standards。 　　【全球官网电子游戏】 　　An e-commerce limited company opened an online store on the tripartite trading platform。In April 2018, Wu bought a box of natural cordycepin lozenges in the online store opened by the company。The outer package of the product is marked with a production date of February 9, 2018, a shelf life of 24 months, and the product parameters show the production license label of the product involved and the execution license label。 　　After receiving the goods, Wu believed that the information displayed on the platform page did not match, and complained to the local Food and Drug Administration。The investigation by the Food and Drug Administration found that the production date marked on the natural cordycepin lozenges purchased by Wu in an e-commerce company limited was on the evening of February 9, 2018, and the validity date of the product involved in the case, the National Industrial Product Production License, was on December 16, 2015。An e-commerce limited company admitted sales facts when it was investigated，It also said that the products in question were produced before the expiration of the production license，After receiving Wu's order, it directly contacted the manufacturer to deliver the goods，The manufacturer changed the production date of the goods in question to February 9, 2018 and sent them directly，An e-commerce limited company commissioned the manufacturer to ship the products without checking the relevant production qualification materials。According to the FDA，An e-commerce company selling food with false production dates violated the provisions of the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China and was given administrative punishment，The act of selling food products with false production dates，Confiscation of illegal gains，And a fine of twice the value of the goods;The behavior of failing to check the license and relevant supporting documents when purchasing goods and failing to establish and comply with the purchase inspection record, factory inspection record and sales record system as required，Order correction，Give a warning。 　　【全球官网电子游戏】 　　The people's court held that，In accordance with Article 53 of the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China，Food operators buy food，The supplier's license and food factory inspection certificate or other certificate of conformity shall be checked;Food trading enterprises shall establish a food purchase inspection and record system，Truthfully record the name, specification, quantity, production date or production batch number, shelf life, purchase date and supplier name, address, contact information and other contents of the food，And save the relevant documents。To find out the facts of the case, the FDA issued a written administrative penalty decision to an e-commerce limited company indicating that the company did not fulfill the inspection obligation when the product was purchased, and an e-commerce limited company also recognized that it did not inspect the product involved in the case during the trial。The company failed to fulfill its purchase inspection obligations and sold the products in question，To exceed the validity of the food production license, marked false production date of the involved products sold，The above acts fall under the provisions of Article 148, paragraph 2, of the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China for knowingly selling food that does not meet food safety standards，Therefore, an e-commerce limited company was ordered to return the goods to Wu and pay ten times punitive damages。At the same time, the goods involved in the case have passed the shelf life, and after Wu returns the goods to an e-commerce limited company, the company shall destroy the goods involved in the case and shall not be put on the shelves again for sale。 　　[Judicial Interpretation of Relevant Laws] 　　Interpretation of the High People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes over Food Safety (1) 　　If a food operator has one of the following circumstances and a consumer's claim constitutes "knowing" as provided for in Article 148 of the Food Safety Law, the people's court shall support: 　　(1) Food that has passed the shelf life indicated but is still sold; 　　(2) failing to provide a legitimate source of purchase for the food sold; 　　(3) purchase goods at an obviously unreasonable low price without reasonable reason; 　　(4) failing to perform purchase inspection obligations according to law; 　　(5) falsely labeling or changing the date or batch number of food production; 　　(6) transferring, concealing or illegally destroying records of food purchase and sale or intentionally providing false information; 　　(7) Other circumstances that can be identified as knowing。 　　Case 3 　　Punitive damages are not premised on causing personal injury 　　-- Zheng Mou and a children's food company online shopping contract dispute 　　【世界十大电子游戏平台】 　　Where a food does not meet food safety standards and a consumer claims that a producer or business operator shall bear punitive damages in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 148 of the Food Safety Law, the people's court shall not support the claim that the producer or business operator has not caused personal injury to the consumer。 　　【全球官网电子游戏】 　　On October 20, 2015, Zheng bought a box of jelly in the online store of a children's food company。After Zheng in the course of eating, found that there was a foreign body in one of the jelly (note: the jelly was not unwrapped), after identification, it was found that the foreign body was a spider。The jelly is also produced by a children's food company。The two sides failed to negotiate, Zheng filed a lawsuit to ask a children's food company to refund its payment and pay compensation of 1,000 yuan。 　　【世界十大电子游戏平台】 　　The people's Court holds that the legitimate rights and interests of consumers are protected by law。Zheng purchased the jelly produced by the defendant in the defendant's online store, and found a spider-like foreign body in one of the jelly during the eating process, according to the "GB19299-2015 Food Safety National Standard Jelly".2 Sensory requirements state no foreign body visible to normal vision ", the case of jelly does not meet the food safety standards。According to the provisions of Article 148 of the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China，Produce food that does not meet food safety standards or knowingly trade food that does not meet food safety standards，In addition to the demand for damages，They may also demand compensation from the producer or business operator for payment of ten times the price or three times the loss;The amount of increased compensation is less than 1,000 yuan，For one thousand yuan。However, the label and instruction manual of the food have defects that do not affect food safety and do not mislead consumers。In this case, although Zheng did not eat the jelly with foreign bodies and did not submit evidence to prove that the food caused personal damage to him, the punitive compensation provided by the food safety law is not based on the premise that the personal rights and interests of consumers are damaged。Therefore, Zheng's lawsuit request for the defendant to return the money and pay 1,000 yuan compensation is based on the law and should be supported。Therefore, a children's food company was sentenced to return the payment to Zheng and pay compensation of 1,000 yuan。 　　[Judicial Interpretation of Relevant Laws] 　　Interpretation of the High People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes over Food Safety (1) 　　Article 10 Where the food does not meet the food safety standards and the consumer claims that the producer or business operator shall bear the liability for punitive damages in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 148 of the Food Safety Law, the People's Court shall not support the producer or business operator in pleading that it has not caused personal injury to the consumer。 　　Case 4 　　Legal liability for dealing in prepackaged food without marked basic information 　　-- Wei Mou v. a technology Co., Ltd. online shopping contract dispute case 　　【世界十大电子游戏平台】 　　If the packaging label of the pre-packaged food does not indicate the name, address and other basic information of the producer, and the consumer requests the food seller to bear punitive damages according to the provisions of Article 148 of the Food Safety Law, the people's court shall support it。 　　【全球官网电子游戏】 　　A technology limited company opened a store to sell food on an e-commerce platform。Wei bought 20 bags of air-dried beef at the store at a time, costing a total of 1,000 yuan。After receiving the goods, Wei opened 10 bags of air-dried beef for eating。However, the packaging label of the air-dried beef purchased by the company does not indicate the basic information such as the name and address of the producer of the product。Wei then asked the company to return the price and pay compensation ten times the price on the grounds that the packaging label of the pre-packaged food sold by a technology limited company did not indicate the basic information such as the name and address of the producer。 　　【世界十大电子游戏平台】 　　The people's Court holds that prepackaged food refers to food that is prepackaged or made in packaging materials or containers。Article 67 of the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "There shall be labels on the packaging of pre-packaged food。The label shall indicate the following: (1) name, specifications, net content and date of production;(2) a list of ingredients or ingredients;(3) the name, address and contact information of the producer;(4) shelf life;(5) product standard code;(6) storage conditions;..."Article 148 (2) states: "Produce food that does not meet food safety standards or knowingly trade food that does not meet food safety standards.，In addition to the demand for damages，They may also demand compensation from the producer or business operator for payment of ten times the price or three times the loss;The amount of increased compensation is less than 1,000 yuan，For one thousand yuan。However, the label and instruction manual of the food have defects that do not affect food safety and do not mislead consumers。The air-dried beef sold to Wei by a technology Co., Ltd. did not indicate the producer's name, address and other information on the packaging label of the commodity, in violation of the above mandatory provisions of the law, which is a product prohibited by law that does not meet food safety standards。The packaging bag label of the product involved in the case did not indicate the basic information such as the name and address of the producer of the product，A technology limited company has not provided evidence to prove that it has fulfilled the necessary review obligations in accordance with relevant regulations，It should be found that it knowingly sold the products in question when they did not meet food safety standards，Wei asked a technology limited company to pay ten times the price of the lawsuit claim is based on law，Should be supported。Therefore, the judgment of a technology limited company to return the price to Wei and pay compensation ten times the price。 　　[Judicial Interpretation of Relevant Laws] 　　Interpretation of the High People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes over Food Safety (1) 　　Article 11 The name, address, ingredients or list of ingredients of the producer are not indicated in the production or operation，Or pre-packaged food that does not clearly indicate the date of production and shelf life，The consumer claims that the producer or business operator shall be liable for punitive damages in accordance with the provisions of Article 148, paragraph 2, of the Food Safety Law，The people's court should support it，However, laws, administrative regulations, food safety national standards on the label annotation matters except otherwise provided。 　　Case five 　　Business operators can not claim exemption only on the grounds that imported food has passed the entry-exit inspection and quarantine 　　-- Jiang v. An information technology Co., Ltd. online shopping contract dispute case 　　【世界十大电子游戏平台】 　　Imported food must conform to the national standard of food safety in our country。If the imported food does not meet China's national food safety standards, imported food operators only on the basis of imported food has passed the entry-exit inspection and quarantine to put forward a disclaimer of defense, the people's court should not support its defense。 　　【全球官网电子游戏】 　　An information technology Co., Ltd. opened an online store on an e-commerce platform to sell imported vitamin capsules。Jiang bought 30 bottles of vitamin capsules in the online store, and paid a total of 8,000 yuan。According to the provisions of the former Food and Drug Administration "Reply Letter on the quality of food containing non-ordinary food raw materials and other related issues" and "Food Safety National Standard Standard for the use of food additives" (GB2760-2011), the vitamin capsule food illegally added food additives。Jiang then sued an information technology Co., Ltd. for violating China's national food safety standards on the basis of vitamin capsules sold on the online store, the company to bear punitive damages。　　【世界十大电子游戏平台】 　　The people's Court believes that although the imported food has been inspected and quarantined by China's entry-exit inspection and quarantine agency, it does not mean that the imported food must meet China's national food safety standards。The scope of use of relevant food additives stipulated in the original State Food and Drug Administration "Reply Letter on the quality of food containing non-ordinary food raw materials and other related issues" and "Food Safety National Standard Standard for the use of food additives" (GB2760-2011) does not include the vitamin capsule food。The information technology Limited company was also unable to prove that the administrative authority had authorized it to use the additive in the imported food。The imported vitamin capsule food sold by an information technology Co., Ltd. used food additives in the ingredients, and the imported food is not in line with China's national food safety standards。An information technology Co., Ltd. put forward a disclaimer defense on the grounds that the imported food it sold had passed the inspection and quarantine of China's entry-exit inspection and quarantine agency, and the defense was not supported by the court。Therefore, the people's court supported Jiang's lawsuit request。 　　[Judicial Interpretation of Relevant Laws] 　　Interpretation of the High People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes over Food Safety (1) 　　Article 12 The imported food fails to meet the national standards for food safety in China or the standards temporarily applied by the administrative department of public health under The State Council，Consumers claim that sellers, importers and other business operators shall bear compensation liability in accordance with Article 148 of the Food Safety Law，The seller, importer and other business operators only on the grounds that the imported food conforms to the food safety standards of the export place or has passed the inspection and quarantine of the entry-exit inspection and quarantine agency of China，The people's court did not support it。 Source: People's Court Daily