The Supreme People’s Court released a typical case of punitive damages for food safety.
Cctv news: Food is the first priority for the people, and safety is the first priority for food. Food safety is related to people’s health and life safety, and it is a major event that affects the national economy and people’s livelihood. The General Secretary of the Supreme Leader attached great importance to this and stressed the need to ensure the "safety on the tip of the tongue" of the broad masses of the people with the "four strictest" requirements. In 2013, the Supreme People’s Court specially formulated a judicial interpretation, stipulating that buyers should claim rights from producers and sellers, and producers and sellers should make a defense on the grounds that buyers still buy food knowing that there are quality problems, and the people’s courts will not support it. This ruling rule has played a positive role in implementing the "four strictest" requirements, punishing illegal activities in the food field, and safeguarding people’s lives, health and safety. However, new situations and problems have also emerged in the implementation process: on the one hand, some buyers have exceeded their daily consumption needs by buying in large quantities, purchasing continuously, claiming high compensation, and even extorting in the name of safeguarding rights, disrupting market order and damaging the legitimate rights and interests of producers and operators. On the other hand, in judicial practice, the understanding and application of relevant laws and judicial interpretations are still inconsistent, which leads to the inconsistency of judgments on similar cases, the failure to give full play to the role of punitive damages system for food safety, and the impact of sanctions on the production and sale of fake and inferior products, which is not conducive to promoting high-quality economic and social development. The Supreme People’s Court released a typical case of punitive damages for food safety, aiming at unifying the rules of adjudication, guiding producers and operators to legally produce and operate, rationally safeguarding consumers’ rights, and protecting food safety.Create a good legal environment for promoting high-quality economic and social development. This time, four typical cases were released, which mainly clarified and unified the referee rules in two aspects:The first is to support consumer rights protection behavior.The people’s courts always insist on protecting food safety and protecting the legitimate rights and interests of consumers according to law. The typical cases released this time have supported consumers’ claims for punitive damages in accordance with the law and continued the Supreme People’s Court’s consistent judicial policy;The second is to support punitive compensation requests within the scope of living consumption.The typical cases released this time identify the scope of "consumers" from objective standards and insist on supporting consumers’ litigation requests for punitive damages within the scope of daily consumption needs.
In the next step, the Supreme People’s Court will focus on the following three aspects: First, promote the improvement of the public interest litigation system, and further play the role of public interest litigation in cracking down on and curbing illegal activities of market participants. The second is to strengthen communication and cooperation with administrative departments, smooth communication channels, improve the cooperation mechanism, and form a joint force to punish illegal activities in the food field. The third is to strengthen the publicity of food safety knowledge and legal knowledge, improve the people’s ability to safeguard their rights and interests through legal channels, and give play to the supervisory role of the broad masses of people in illegal activities.
Typical cases of punitive damages for food safety
Case 1
Consumers have the right to ask business operators selling food with counterfeit registered trademarks to pay punitive damages of ten times the price.— — Guo v a sales department (case of product liability dispute)
Basic facts
On November 17, 2021, Guo bought 2 pieces of 12 bottles of a certain brand of liquor from a business department and paid 11,160 yuan. On November 23, 2021, Guo bought 2 pieces and 12 bottles of a brand of liquor from a business department again, and paid 10,937 yuan. After Guo suspected that the liquor he bought was fake, he reported it to the local market supervision and management department. A liquor company issued an "identification certificate", indicating that the above-mentioned liquor of a certain brand was not produced by the company, and it was a product with a counterfeit registered trademark. Guo sued a business department, demanding a refund of the purchase price and paying ten times the compensation for the purchase price.
Typical significance
Fake and shoddy food will endanger people’s health and life safety. Operators selling food with counterfeit registered trademarks not only infringe on the trademark rights of enterprises, disrupt market order, but also infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of consumers. Consumers have the right to request operators to pay punitive damages of ten times the price according to the second paragraph of Article 148 of People’s Republic of China (PRC) Food Safety Law. In this case, Guo bought the liquor involved in the case based on the needs of daily consumption. The people’s court strictly implemented the "four strictest" requirements put forward by the Supreme Leader General Secretary, and not only sentenced the operator to refund the purchase price to the consumer, but also sentenced the operator to pay ten times the price to the consumer. Punitive damages of 220,970 yuan. In this case, the operator who illegally sells food with counterfeit registered trademarks is judged to be liable for punitive damages, so that illegal producers or operators cannot profit from illegal acts, which is not only conducive to creating an honest and trustworthy business environment and promoting high-quality economic and social development, but also conducive to cracking down on and curbing illegal acts of manufacturing and selling counterfeit and shoddy foods and protecting the people’s "safety on the tip of the tongue".
travel to watch industry
Consumers have the right to demand that the operators in prepackaged foods who sell basic information such as the date of production are not marked pay punitive damages of ten times the price.— — Liu v a deer company (case of dispute over sales contract)
Basic facts
In December 2020, Liu bought deer placenta cream and deer whip cream in a deer industry company and paid 3680 yuan; In January of the following year, Liu bought deer placenta cream and deer whip cream again in a deer industry company and paid 7000 yuan. The product labels of the above-mentioned deer placenta cream and deer whip cream are marked with the main ingredients, storage method, shelf life and net content, but the production site, factory name, production date, producer’s name, address, contact information, product standard code and other information are not marked, so Liu sued a deer industry company for returning the deer placenta cream and deer whip cream price of 10,680 yuan and paying compensation of 106,800 yuan.
Typical significance
Labeling is no small matter. The producer’s name, address, contact information, product standard code and production license number indicated on the packaging label in prepackaged foods are of great significance for protecting consumers’ right to know and food safety. When selling food, business operators should examine whether the packaging labels in prepackaged foods indicate these basic information, otherwise they will bear legal responsibilities according to law. The defects of labels and instructions stipulated in the second paragraph of Article 148 of the Food Safety Law of People’s Republic of China (PRC) refer to the defects of labels and instructions of food that do not affect food safety and will not mislead consumers, including the nonstandard font size, font size and height of words, symbols and numbers, and the situation that although there are typos, multiple words and missing words, they will not lead consumers to misunderstand food safety. In this case, the basic information such as the producer’s name, address, contact information, production date, product standard code and so on were not indicated on the packaging label of the deer embryo cream and deer whip cream sold to Liu by a deer industry company, which did not meet the food safety standards, would affect food safety and mislead consumers, and did not belong to label defects. Liu’s purchase of deer placenta cream and deer whip cream did not exceed his personal and family consumption needs, so Liu asked a deer company to pay punitive damages of ten times the price, which should be supported according to law.
The second paragraph of Article 148 of the Food Safety Law of People’s Republic of China (PRC) stipulates that the condition for operators to bear punitive damages is to deal in foods that they know are not in conformity with food safety standards, not foods that have been or are determined to cause harm to consumers’ lives and health. There is no risk of one in ten thousand in food safety. Some foods that do not meet the food safety standards have latent and long-term harm to human health. Therefore, consumers claim that producers and operators should bear punitive damages according to the second paragraph of Article 148 of the Food Safety Law of People’s Republic of China (PRC), and the defense that producers or operators have not caused personal injury to consumers cannot be established. This case is of typical significance to clarify the value of packaging labels in prepackaged foods, the conditions for operators to bear punitive damages and the rules for identifying label defects.
Case 3
If the purchased food is found not to meet the food safety standards, it will be purchased repeatedly, and ten times punitive damages will be calculated based on the part that does not exceed the reasonable living and consumption needs of the purchaser.— — Shamou v Anhui food technology co., ltd.
Basic facts
On December 15, 2020, the plaintiff Shamou bought 30 boxes of "Huangqi Coix Rice Biscuits" in an online shop opened by the defendant Anhui Food Technology Co., Ltd., and paid 516 yuan. After receipt on December 18, 2020, it was found that it did not meet the food safety standards. On December 30, 2020, January 12, 2021, and March 3, 2021, 40 boxes, 60 boxes, and 100 boxes of "Huangqi barley biscuits" were purchased, and the payments were 636 yuan, 1,134 yuan, and 1,890 yuan respectively. Four total payments of 4176 yuan. Shamou sued the operator for refunding the price of 4176 yuan and paying 41760 yuan equivalent to ten times the price on the grounds that Astragalus powder was added to the product and violated the relevant regulations.
Typical significance
Article 3 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Food and Drug Disputes stipulates: "If there is a dispute over the quality of food and drug, the buyer claims rights from the producer and seller, and the producer and seller make a defense on the grounds that the buyer still buys the food and drug knowing that there are quality problems, the people’s court will not support it." When applying the judicial interpretation of this article, the people’s court shall combine the provisions of Article 2 of the Consumer Protection Law of People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Article 148 of the Food Safety Law of People’s Republic of China (PRC), and support the "buyer’s claim for punitive damages of ten times the price within the scope of" daily consumption needs ". The purchase behavior of the "buyer" as stipulated in this article includes both consumer behavior and non-consumer behavior that exceeds the living consumption needs. The "buyer" has the right to claim punitive damages of ten times the price only for the part of the food that does not exceed the reasonable living consumption needs of his own personal and family.
In this case, Shamou bought 30 boxes of "Huangqi glutinous rice biscuits" for the first time. After receiving the goods and confirming that the biscuits did not meet the food safety standards, he bought them three times in a row, and the number of additional purchases reached 200 boxes. The people’s court comprehensively considered the shelf life of food, the usual consumption habits of ordinary consumers, the number of purchases and the interval, etc., and concluded that Shamou’s first purchase of 30 boxes of "Huangqi barley biscuits" met the needs of reasonable living consumption, and accordingly determined the base for calculating punitive damages, which was of positive significance for correctly applying the punitive damages system for food safety, cracking down on illegal production and business operations, guiding consumers to be honest and rational in safeguarding their rights, serving and ensuring high-quality economic and social development, and realizing two value orientations of protecting food safety and maintaining production and business order.
Case 4
When purchasing food, deliberately paying in small amounts for several times and claiming compensation of 1,000 yuan for each settlement, the base for calculating punitive damages should be determined within the total payment amount within the limit of reasonable living consumption needs.— — Zhang v Shanghai fresh food co., ltd (case of dispute over sales contract)
Basic facts
On February 20, 2016, the plaintiff Zhang bought six cooked salted duck eggs in bulk at the defendant Shanghai Fresh Food Co., Ltd., each with a unit price of RMB 2.20. The production date was August 23, 2015 and the shelf life was 180 days. At the same time, the plaintiff paid by bank card for 6 times, and the defendant issued 6 shopping receipts for salted duck eggs at the same time. This batch of salted duck eggs has passed the shelf life of 1 day. On February 21, the plaintiff bought 40 salted duck eggs in the same batch from the defendant, and paid 40 times by credit card. At the same time, the defendant issued 40 shopping receipts for 40 salted duck eggs respectively. This batch of salted duck eggs has passed the shelf life of 2 days. The plaintiff reported to the local market supervision administration on the grounds that all 46 salted duck eggs had expired. After mediation failed, he appealed to the court and asked the defendant to refund the plaintiff’s purchase price of 101.20 yuan, and the plaintiff returned the defendant 46 salted duck eggs. The defendant paid a total compensation of 46,000 yuan according to the minimum compensation 1000 yuan per piece.
Typical significance
The purchaser intentionally makes several or dozens of small payments in a single transaction, and requests a compensation of 1,000 yuan for each settlement according to the provision in the second paragraph of Article 148 of People’s Republic of China (PRC) Food Safety Law that the amount of additional compensation is less than 1,000 yuan, and the punitive damages are calculated according to the number of settlements, which is inconsistent with the usual trading habits of consumers and the spirit of the punitive damages system stipulated in the second paragraph of Article 148 of People’s Republic of China (PRC) Food Safety Law. The people’s court shall, within the scope of reasonable living and consumption needs, take the total amount of the price paid by the purchaser in installments as the base for calculating punitive damages, and order the producers and operators to pay punitive damages ten times the price. In this case, the plaintiff bought 46 salted duck eggs and paid a total price of 101.20 yuan, which did not exceed his personal and family’s reasonable living and consumption needs. The trial court calculated punitive damages ten times the price based on the actual total price of 101.20 yuan, which made it clear that the people’s court insisted on supporting the "consumer" in the scope of "living and consumption needs", which not only protected the "safety on the tip of the tongue" of the broad masses of the people.