The tire of the car burst into the tire, and I felt that Mr. Liu, who was unlucky, did not expect that the auto parts company replaced him for 4 years. After the negotiation was unsuccessful, Mr. Liu complained to the court to the court. After the trial of the Beijing Haidian District People’s Court, the first instance determined that the behavior of the auto parts company constituted a fraud, ordered the return of 1350 yuan to replace the replacement of 1350 yuan, and compensated Mr. Liu 4050 yuan 3 times.

In July 2017, Mr. Liu’s BMW tire burst, and he found a car accessories sales Co., Ltd. in Beijing to ask for a new tire and paid 1350 yuan. However, the next day, Mr. Liu found that the tire was not new, and the production date replaced by authoritative identification was the 8th week of 2013. Mr. Liu said that the tire is a rubber product. After 3 years of placement, the quality of the rubber must be aging. According to national regulations, this ultra -long inventory tire should not be sold at all. When he found a auto parts company to ask for a real new fetus, he did not expect that the other party refused to replace it with various excuses. In desperation, Mr. Liu complained to the court and believed that the behavior of the auto parts company was intentional fraud. In order to charge, he required to return to the replacement of tire goods and compensated 3 times.

In this regard, the auto parts company argued that it was dark when the tire was changed. During the installation process, Mr. Liu proposed that some tires were old. The manager said that it looked a bit old but did not affect the use, so he installed it with the consent of Mr. Liu. The auto parts company believes that the company does not violate any regulations, and Mr. Liu has not proposed the corresponding legal provisions to prove that the inventory tire cannot be sold, so he does not agree with him.

After trial, the court believed that the domestic trade industry standard “Tire Cosmetics Technical Specification” stipulated that the claim period (including tires that were not used and in normal use) calculated according to the tire production date, and within 3 years for the validity period of the claim; the domestic trade industry industry; the domestic trade industry industry In the standard “Tire Marketing Management Specifications”, it is clear that tire distribution companies should not distribute tires that cannot be claimed. The judge believes that the aging of rubber products such as tires will cause significant changes in physical properties in stretching, hardness, and abrasion resistance. General consensus on product quality control. Therefore, the inventory tires of more than 3 years are not the scope of the tires that are sold normally, unless the dealer explicitly explicitly explicitly explicitly shows the price of bargaining with quality assurance responsibility.

In this case, without explicitly, the auto parts company sold tires produced in the 8th week of 2013 to Mr. Liu. The sales date has already exceeded the three -year compensation period, so it does not meet the industry standards for tire distribution. Although this standard is a marketing management specification of tire distribution companies, it is not the quality specifications of tire products, but this specification has a causal relationship with the tire performance and quality decision. It can be applied for reference. Therefore, the inventory tires sold to Mr. Liu by the auto parts company are tires with a safe service life than normal sales standards, which belongs to quality flaws. In the absence of explicit, the sales of tires with a sales inventory of more than 3 years have hidden safety hazards and constitute a fraud.

Based on this, the court made the above verdict in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Consumer Rights Protection Law.

The service with fraud should be compensated as required

“When the case clarifies the inventory tire that sells for the claim period, the dealer shall be liable for compensation without fulfilling the notification obligation.” In the case of the period, the dealer’s obligation shall be confirmed in accordance with industry standards.

According to the National Standards for Quality Supervision and Inspection and Quarantine and the National Standardization Management Committee in July 2013, the national standard “three -pack main parts and three packages of household car products”, the tires belong to the “easy loss of components in the three -pack responsibility “The three -pack vouchers should record the production date and three packs of validity. When the auto parts company was sold, it did not provide the three packages of the tires to Mr. Liu, nor did it explicitly that the information should be recorded on the three -pack voucher, which violated the above regulations.

my country’s Consumer Rights Protection Law stipulates that operators provide consumers with information, validity periods and other information about the quality, validity period of services or services, and should not be a false or misunderstanding of publicity; Inquiries made by the quality and usage method of goods or services shall make a true and clear reply. As a company that has long been engaged in tire sales for a long time, the question of “old appearance” raised by consumers should make detailed and clear explanations, and clearly inform the tires’ production date, claims period, warranty period and related liability. In this case, the salesperson of the auto parts company replied that “it is a new non -affecting use”, which is obviously inconsistent with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Law on the obligation to inform and damage Mr. Liu’s right to know.

According to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Law, if the operator provides fraudulent acts or services, it shall increase the loss of compensation in accordance with the requirements of the consumer, and increase the amount of compensation for the price of the consumer to purchase goods or the cost of receiving services. Legal fraud includes two ways: as a role and inaction, and inaction refers to the fact that the facts deliberately hide the facts under the premise of the obligation to inform. In this case, the auto parts company deliberately concealed the information of the tire for a long time, which directly led Mr. Liu to make a wrong judgment of “agreeing to change the tire”, which constituted fraud.