The Chanel backpack bought by Weibo for 22,800 yuan was a fake. Ms. Zhai sued Xiao An, the seller, for fraud, demanding a refund and triple compensation. Yesterday morning, Chaoyang court heard the case. It is reported that Ms. Zhai didn’t know until the trial that Xiao An, who claimed to be studying in the United States in Weibo, turned out to be a sophomore at a domestic university. Xiao An said that her family bought the backpack from the United States, and she only earned the difference in 800 yuan.
Buy fake bags by purchasing online.
Ms Zhai, 32, is a stay-at-home mom who likes online shopping and often buys brand-name bags. Yesterday, she appeared in court with a valuable brand-name bag. Ms Zhai said that when she was browsing online, she saw Weibo from Xiao ‘an. The other party was named "Little Girl American Daigou", who claimed to be studying in the United States, specializing in purchasing and selling.
"A lot of her Weibo shows her life in the United States and purchases and deliveries. I have also lived in the United States, and seeing familiar scenes has aroused my good memories." Based on trust, Ms. Zhai added Xiao ‘an’s Weibo and WeChat friends.
On July 22nd last year, Ms Zhai ordered a limited edition black Chanel backpack from Xiao ‘an and paid 22,800 yuan. When receiving the goods, she found that the delivery place of the backpack was Nanjing. There is still a pungent smell after unpacking. "Work is very rough, a look is false, not even high imitation. Moreover, I ordered a leather bag, but this bag feels like PU leather. " After identification, the material of the bag is indeed PU leather.
Ms. Zhai also consulted Chanel’s official customer service and confirmed that the material of the genuine bag is calf leather, and the number in the bag is not the normal number of the genuine product. Because the other party did not agree to the refund, Ms. Zhai took Xiao ‘an to court on the grounds of fraud, demanding a refund of the purchase price, and tripled the compensation to a total of 68,400 yuan.
Chanel confirmed that it was a fake.
It is reported that the court has entrusted Chanel to identify the authenticity of the bag involved. According to the company’s reply, the bag involved was not produced by Chanel, and the product was counterfeit and of poor quality, which was obviously different from the genuine product.
During the trial, Ms. Zhai submitted a screenshot of Weibo, a bill of goods involved and a recording with Chanel’s official customer service to prove that she bought a fake. She said that there should be consumption tax on the invoice of the United States, but the defendant did not provide it, which was obviously false. The other receipt is also in the wrong format and has been blurred. Ms. Zhai also took out a bill for her previous purchase of genuine backpacks directly from the United States for comparison. In addition, Ms. Zhai also submitted screenshots of the defendant’s Weibo and WeChat, which proved that Xiao An’s fictional study in the United States constituted fraud.
The defendant said that the bag involved was purchased from the last home.
Yesterday, Xiao An didn’t appear in court. His attorney said that Xiao An was a sophomore in a university in Chongqing, and the bag involved was bought from her family and delivered directly by the other party. The lawyer also showed the transfer voucher that Xiao An transferred 22,000 yuan to his family.
The attorney said that Xiao An and his family also met through the Internet, and there had been more than a dozen transactions before. Because all the purchases are genuine, we will continue to cooperate based on trust. Xiao ‘an has fulfilled the obligation to deliver the goods, and also provided shopping receipts and credit cards. After receiving the complaint, Xiao An immediately contacted his family, and the other party assured him that it was genuine and that he personally bought it in the United States. "The defendant has always believed in good faith that what he bought from his last home is genuine. To take a step back, even if there is a problem with the bag, it should be borne by the family. "
"Xiao’ an only occasionally engages in purchasing in his spare time. It is not a long-term business operation, nor has he obtained an industrial and commercial business license. He does not have the qualification of an operator, so the relevant provisions of fraud in the Consumer Law are not applicable." Xiao ‘an’s attorney admitted that Xiao ‘an had never lived in the United States, and the content in Weibo only forwarded the information of "going home", but claimed that Xiao ‘an did not fabricate the information of the goods involved, so it did not constitute fraud.
For the "going home" mentioned by Xiao’ an, Ms. Yan also refused to recognize it. She said that the head of the defendant Weibo was exactly the same as the head of her WeChat account, and the defendant made up the purchase account. The so-called account account and the defendant were the same person. This statement was denied by the defendant’s lawyer, saying that the same avatar does not mean that two users of WeChat or Weibo are the same person. Because the plaintiff refused to mediate, the court will decide on another day.
Beijing Morning Post reporter Yan Fei