The store all solid wood home has a catty court sentenced 3 times compensation

With all the solid wood signboards and expensive furniture, is it really solid wood? Mr. Guo of Nanjing purchased more than 120,000 yuan of solid wood furniture. After returning home, he found that there were mixed plates. After many communication failures, he would himself The company that bought the brand furniture went to court. Recently, the Qinhuai District People's Court of Nanjing City heard the case.

In the first half of 2017, Mr. Guo bought furniture at the Nanjing Sales Center of a well-known furniture company. The staff enthusiastically introduces the product and guarantees in writing that all products are all solid wood. Mr. Guo was very satisfied, picked a few pieces, and even bought a few samples to go back. He paid a total of more than 120,000 yuan and directly injected the money into the public account of a furniture company. The text used by the two parties to sign the contract is a standard contract with the official seal of the furniture company.

After returning home, Mr. Guo found that the furniture was not all solid wood, and the furniture was mixed in the furniture such as bookcases, beds, bedside tables and dining tables. He contacted the staff of the sales center. After many consultations, there was no result. The sales center and a furniture company were brought to court, and 7 pieces of non-solid wood furniture were returned. The return amount was 3,4935.8 yuan, and the compensation for 3 times was 10,4807.4 yuan. .

At the time of the court hearing, the local furniture sales center in Nanjing did not go to the court to appeal, and a furniture company in Dongguan entrusted a lawyer to come. The furniture company believes that Mr. Guo has signed a contract with the sales center and has nothing to do with their company. There are two copies of the sales order, the promise that "all products are all solid wood" is written in the second sales list, only the bed and bedside table recorded in the sales list, not including the furniture of the first sales list.

The furniture company also stated that their company has never promised that the product is all solid wood. The whole solid wood of the staff of the sales center refers to the main body of the furniture. 60%-70% of the furniture is solid wood and it is considered to be all solid wood furniture. It does not need 100% all solid wood, a salesperson cannot be on the country. The standard is very clear and there is no fraud.

The Qinhuai court held that the promise of “all products are all solid wood” written on the second sales slip should be as effective as the product on the first sales slip. Because the commitment is recorded under the words “124,000 yuan after discount”, it is clearly a commitment to all 124,000 yuan of furniture. The national standard does have the definition and statement of all solid wood furniture, and the quality standard is very clear. At the same time, the solid wood furniture is strictly different from the solid wood furniture. There is no confusion between the two concepts. The “all solid wood” furniture promised by the sales center is completely existed, and the contracted quality standards are feasible.

The court held that as a salesperson, it is obvious that there should be some understanding of the relevant regulations, and should also have a general understanding of the term "all solid wood." Under the premise that the sales center should have a correct understanding of the concept of “all solid wood”, they obviously constitute fraud against Mr. Guo. Mr. Guo’s request for return of repayment should be supported. As a consumer, when purchasing complete sets of furniture, he has certain requirements and expectations for the unification of styles and colors. It is completely justified for the return of products related to related products. The request is also justified.

When Mr. Guo was in the transaction, the sales contract signed with the sales center was a standard contract uniformly printed by the furniture company. The furniture company should be the opposite party of the contract, and the sales center and the furniture company bear joint and several liability.

The court ruled that Mr. Guo returned the non-full solid wood furniture to the two defendants, and the defendant returned the corresponding payment of 3,4935.8 yuan and paid 3 times the compensation of 10,4807.4 yuan. The furniture that is matched with this part of the product has also been returned for repayment.