Futures
Access hundreds of perpetual contracts
TradFi
Gold
One platform for global traditional assets
Options
Hot
Trade European-style vanilla options
Unified Account
Maximize your capital efficiency
Demo Trading
Introduction to Futures Trading
Learn the basics of futures trading
Futures Events
Join events to earn rewards
Demo Trading
Use virtual funds to practice risk-free trading
Launch
CandyDrop
Collect candies to earn airdrops
Launchpool
Quick staking, earn potential new tokens
HODLer Airdrop
Hold GT and get massive airdrops for free
Launchpad
Be early to the next big token project
Alpha Points
Trade on-chain assets and earn airdrops
Futures Points
Earn futures points and claim airdrop rewards
Can "knowingly buying counterfeit goods" qualify for triple compensation?
Source: Fuzhou Evening News
To reach the claimed compensation amount, after the consumer initially purchased and found the product did not match the advertisement, they placed an order for 20 more sets of the same product. They then sued in court for “one refund plus triple compensation” on all 21 sets. Recently, the Cangshan Court concluded this sales contract dispute case and clarified the punitive damages in cases of “knowing and buying fake” products.
In September 2024, Mr. Lin purchased a shower head claiming to be made entirely of copper from an online store, paying 220.39 yuan. After confirming the received product did not match the description, the merchant refunded the money after communication. Later, Mr. Lin ordered 20 more sets of the same shower head, paying 5,545.52 yuan, and then sued the court for all 21 sets, requesting “one refund plus triple compensation.”
The court held that, for the first transaction, the merchant’s false advertising constituted consumer fraud and should bear the responsibility of “one refund plus triple compensation.” Since the payment was already refunded, the court ordered the merchant to pay an additional three times the compensation of 661.17 yuan.
Regarding the subsequent purchase of 20 sets, the court did not support the “one refund plus triple compensation” request, for two reasons: First, Mr. Lin purchased again knowing the true material of the product, so the merchant did not have malicious intent to deceive in this transaction; second, his purchase of 20 sets at once clearly exceeded the scope of “consumer needs for daily life” and did not fall under the protection of the Consumer Rights Protection Law.
The judge stated that the ruling clearly delineates the boundary between legitimate rights protection and abuse of rights. It warns merchants against false advertising and clarifies that the purpose of punitive damages is to protect consumers who have been defrauded, not to support consumers who knowingly buy fake products or seek to profit indirectly. (Reporter: Lin Chunchang; Correspondent: Lin Wei)
【Source: Taipingyang Net】