Coffee malicious rights protection leave one to ten? What are the problems with the standard quality of coffee bean production?

The Intermediate People's Court of Pingxiang City, Jiangxi Province concluded a dispute case over a sales contract in the second instance. The court finally ruled that the store owner should refund the full amount paid by the consumer and compensate the consumer ten times the price.

It was found out by the court that Zhou Mou, a consumer, opened an inn in Jiangxi Province. Because some guests needed coffee entertainment, Zhou also had the habit of drinking coffee every day, so he bought 10 boxes of black coffee worth 3750 yuan in an online store in August 2020. After brewing and tasting, retching, palpitation, dry throat and other discomfort symptoms appeared. The online store showed that coffee was imported from abroad, so Zhou asked the online store to provide the entry inspection report of the products sold, but the online store customer service only told Zhou that the products sold were imported from South Korea, and did not provide relevant entry and exit inspection reports. Zhou checked the coffee he bought and found that the coffee had no outer packaging box and was three small bags of bulk solid coffee. There is no Chinese mark on the sub-bag, and the label also indicates the manufacturer, production address, product composition and other information.

So Zhou Mou to three no products for the reason of the online store to court, and asked the online store to refund the purchase price 3750 yuan, and need the online store to pay ten times the purchase price compensation 37500 yuan, a total of 41250 yuan. In addition, Zhou also bought coffee in other online stores, and repeatedly claimed ten times the compensation to the court for unqualified products... The online store is certainly not convinced! The shopkeeper argued that Zhou was not a consumer. Zhou himself had an inn. As long as he bought coffee to entertain guests, the subjective purpose of purchasing products was for production and operation, not for consumption purposes. Zhou also bought the same type of products many times in the online store, and then soon claimed compensation, is for the purpose of claim purchase.

After the court heard that Zhou should belong to the consumer protected by the Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law, judging whether a natural person belongs to the consumer protected by the Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law cannot be judged only by the subjective purpose of purchasing the product. In addition, the involved products sold by the online store did not show manufacturer information, production date and food safety certificate, nor did they submit evidence to prove that the products met the quality standards, so it was determined that the products sold did not meet the food safety standards. The production of coffee beans generally uses NY/T 605 production standards. However, in the face of the current boutique coffee market, NY/T 605 has obvious incompatibility. Compared with the general commodity coffee (that is, the coffee beans targeted by NY/T 605), the market has different requirements for the roasting time of coffee. The best time for coffee beans to drink is 5-30 days. Customers will ask to receive fresh beans as much as possible. NY/T 605 has mandatory inspection items for pesticide residues in each batch of coffee beans, so that the factory report time needs to be about 10-25 days. Then using NY/T 605 to produce coffee beans may lead to some risks that may be exploited by malicious rights defenders. Special attention should be paid to these risks, mainly including false production qualifications or false quality inspection reports: For some small businesses, they do not have factories, most of them use the third-party production license qualification by means of attachment, but the place of delivery and the place of production are far away, and even cross-provincial situations may occur, such as the place of production in Hubei, the place of operation and delivery in Hangzhou and Shanghai, and the customer can indeed receive freshly baked coffee beans. Normally, this time even NY/T 605 has not issued the factory report.

By attaching the qualification, the standard used is NY/T 605, then there may be false production qualification, and it is impossible to have the factory report required by NY/T 605 in terms of time. Therefore, no matter which point, there may be some risks at these two points. It can be seen that the production standard of coffee also needs to keep pace with the times. The existence of this problem is because NY/T 605 at the time of formulation, the market for coffee beans freshness requirements are not too high, most of the beans bought in the mall are more than half a year of roasting, but with people's coffee roasting time requirements are getting higher and higher, NY/T 605 has obvious deficiencies, the use of NY/T 605 boutique coffee small businesses, or there will be false production qualifications or quality inspection report complaints risk. In this case, since the online store sold really three no products, the consumer claimed ten times the price compensation, and the court should support it. However, in this matter, Zhou Mou if there will be purchased coffee for commercial use, then he is also a sale of three no products, consumer guests can also use the same reason Zhou Mou to court. As a coffee producer and marketer, it is necessary to ensure that the products sold comply with the relevant laws and regulations of China.

Image Source: Network

Professional coffee knowledge exchange More coffee bean information Please pay attention to coffee workshop (Weixin Official Accounts cafe_style)

More fine coffee beans, please add private WeChat Qianjie Coffee, WeChat: kaixinguoguo0925