Custom furniture without the agreed sheet dealers were awarded three times the compensation

China Paint Network
News: buyers when customizing furniture agreed to use high-level plate, after receiving the furniture found that the smell of pungent, identified is not the use of agreed plate. Recently, the Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court upheld the original judgment in the second instance, and the dealer was ordered to pay the buyer three times the compensation.
, February 22, 2014, consumer Ma a building materials market in Beijing Huairou District, Beijing warm Sandley furniture store customized 3 sets of wardrobes. Ma signed a contract with Beijing Sundry Shijia International Furniture Co., Ltd., agreed to "cabinet white oak E0 level", and agreed to the total price, store receipt advance payment and balance. Ma made an advance payment. On March 12 of the same year, after the furniture company installed three sets of wardrobes at Ma's residence, Ma paid the remaining amount. After the wardrobe irritating smell is strong, Ma commissioned the relevant units to 3 sets of wardrobe plate identification, the results show that the plate is not agreed upon. Ma will take the dealer to court.
In the first trial of this case, by Jilin Forest Industry Co., Ltd. commissioned by the responsible for the beijing market rights fraud staff identification, the production of the three sets of wardrobes involved in the case of the plate is not Jilin Forest Industry Co., Ltd. production of E0-class dew river brand particle board. The court of first instance ruled that the dealer went to Ma somewhere to remove the 3 sets of wardrobes after the demolition, and returned the price of a wardrobe purchased by Ma 6700 yuan, according to the Consumer Rights Protection Law ordered dealers to pay Ma a compensation of 20100 yuan.
Dealer Road did not accept the first-instance judgment, appealed to the city's three central courts, that the case is based on customized contract disputes, should be applied to the Contract Law instead of the Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law, requesting the revocation of the first-instance judgment, and in accordance with the law to change the sentence.
Court of Justice held that the location of Ma's custom wardrobe is a Beijing warm Sandley furniture store operated by Lu, and that Lu, together with Sundry Company, should be identified as the operator who provides the services stipulated in the contract. Lu, Sundley company did not use the agreed plate to make furniture, but claimed that the furniture by the dew river brand E0 grade particle board production, belongs to the "consumer rights and interests protection law" provisions of fraud, according to law should pay Ma a three-fold compensation. Accordingly, the Three Central Court of Appeal rejected the appeal of Lu and Sundry Company and upheld the original judgment.