[success]_ bracelet bracelet reconciliation event successful reconciliation, stand the five question-吴昕谈网络暴力

When a reporter from the Yunnan province Ruili valuablejade association was informed that after the negotiation broke the price of 300 thousand yuan (RMB, same below) of tourists and businesses collapsed after Ms. fee at 17 days to reach a compensation agreement, the final 170 thousand to the price of compensation fee, Ms. bear 70% of the responsibility, the responsibility to bear 30% businesses. (Beijing in July 19th) to try 300 thousand Bracelet accidentally broken, after the successful settlement fee lady bear 70% of the responsibility, fairness, may wish to see whether it can withstand the five question". First of all, whether the store has clearly marked prices? From the report, Ms. fee don’t know that I tried wearing the bracelet priced at 300 thousand yuan, if she knew, certainly not to try, or carefully try. However, the reality is that Ms. Fei is wearing a bag with her left hand and an umbrella with her right hand. Obviously, I do not know the fee lady real price bracelet. Visible, the store owner or did not do mark up, or after the price tag is not in "significant position", so that consumers Zhi Xiao. This is clearly inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the "consumer protection law", there is no guarantee of consumer’s right to know, the store to be responsible for it. Secondly, the existence of the "pengci store business"? Reported that when the incident, the clerk in a group of bracelets for packaging, bracelet placed on the counter, the woman walked through a bracelet to wear test". Note that such valuables are placed on the counter and placed improperly; and bracelets are fragile, but they have not taken any safety measures, which are improper storage. Based on "two improper", let Ms. fee can reach out and try to bracelet are broken, it is easy to let people feel the store is in inducing consumers to take the bait, if so, with no two social "pengci"; if there is, it is a typical "touch the porcelain business". Third, whether the store has failed to fulfill its obligation to inform? The law on the protection of consumers’ rights and interests clearly stipulates that the operators have the duty of informing and guarantee the fair consumption of consumers. Arguably, the fee of woman wearing the bracelet, the clerk should remind the jade bracelet is fragile, be careful to try, and try to provide the correct method, at the same time provide a safe place to wear, to ensure the safety of the jade bracelet. But in reality, the clerk did not do these, the store should be responsible for their failure to fulfill the obligation to bear part of the responsibility. Fourth, the store is "lion big openings"? The local Ruili gem association evaluation to assess the market value of Specialized Committee was 180 thousand yuan, if the third party assessment, the market price may be less than the jade bracelet. Especially the 180 thousand yuan bracelet was valued to shout out the price of 300 thousand yuan, the existence of "false price", "lion’s mouth"? Thus resulting in claims is also "astronomical claims"? After all, there have been reports that the Pingdingshan public Lee tried to wear a jade bracelet priced at 400 thousand, during which the bracelet slipped and smashed into 4 pieces, and the court decided Li to compensate the plaintiff for 16800 yuan. 400 thousand yuan bracelet, compensate 16800 yuan. Now, Ms. Fei to assume 70% responsibility, if in accordance with the 170 thousand yuan compensation, Ms. Fei’s compensation over 100 thousand yuan, this is not "astronomical claims"? This is also worth considering.   记者从云南省瑞丽宝玉石协会获悉,经过协商摔断售价30万元(人名币,下同)后晕倒的游客费女士与商家于17日达成赔偿协议,最终以17万的价格进行赔偿,费女士承担70%责任,商家承担30%责任。(7月19日中新网)



  试戴30万玉镯不小心摔断,成功和解后费女士承担70%责任,是否公平,不妨看看这是否经得起“五问”。 首先,该店家是否做到了明码标价?从报道上看,费女士根本不知道自己所试戴的玉镯售价为30万元,如果她知道了,肯定不会去试戴,或者会小心翼翼地试戴。然而,现实是费女士“左手夹着包,右手夹着雨伞”地试戴。显然,费女士确实不知该玉镯的真实价格。可见,该店家或没有做到明码标价,或明码标价后没有在“显著位置”让消费者知晓。这显然与《消费者权益保护法》中的相关规定不符,没有保障消费者的知情权,该店家要对其负责。




  其次,该店家是否存在“商业碰瓷”?报道说,事发时,店员在给一批手镯换包装,“手镯就放在柜台上,该女子走过时把一只手镯戴到手上试”。须知,这么贵重的东西随便放在柜台上,属于放置不当;且手镯属于易碎品,却没有采取任何安全保护措施,属于保管不当。在“两不当”的前提下,让费女士伸手就能试戴,导致玉镯被摔断,这容易让人感觉该店家是在诱导消费者上当,若果真如此,这跟社会上“碰瓷”没啥两样;如果说有,那就是典型的“商业碰瓷”。 第三,该店家是否未履行告知义务?《消费者权益保护法》明确规定,经营者有告知的义务,保障消费者公平消费。按理说,在费女士试戴玉镯时,店员理应提醒该玉镯是易碎品,要小心试戴,并提供正确的试戴方法,同时提供试戴的安全场所,确保玉镯的安全。可现实中店员并没有做到这些,该店家理应为自己未履行告知义务而承担部分责任。


  第四,该店家是否“狮子大开口”?当地瑞丽市宝玉石协会评估专业委员会评估该玉镯市场价值人民币18万元,如果由第三方评估,该玉镯市价可能要低些。特别是18万元的玉镯估价却要喊出售价30万元,是否存在“虚假标价”,“狮子大开口”?从而导致索赔也是“天价索赔”呢?毕竟,曾有报道说,平顶山市民李某在试戴一标价为40万的翡翠手镯过程中,不慎将手镯滑落打碎摔成4段,法院判决李某赔偿原告16800元。40万元手镯赔16800元。而今,费女士要承担70%责任,如果按照17万元赔偿,费女士的赔偿超过了10万元,这是不是“天价索赔”呢?这也值得考量。

 
  第五,厦门女店员不幸将价值1000多万元的玉镯摔成两截,金店老板考虑女店员无力赔偿,大度地不要求店员赔偿。而今,报道说费女士是低保户,按照一般情况讲,无力给予10万元以上的赔偿,为什么该店家不学学金店老板宽宏大量,减免赔偿金呢?难道非要把人逼上“绝路”不成?何况,到目前为止,还没有听说该店家给予费女士精神赔偿呢。  相关的主题文章:

Edit