Research Of The Case Of The Large Amount Of Claim To Asus Computer CO., LTD

In recent years, with the enhancement of consumer's awareness of right protection, the cases of right of protection are on the increase year by year. The cases of excessive right protection frequently occur; even consumers claim the large amount compensation and threat to make public to journalists. These conducts are more likely to institute the crime of extort. This kind of case once caused populace widespread discussion, the academics also have significant different ideas, and meanwhile the judiciary also has dramatically debated about the issue. This article plans to analyze and research the case of large amount claim to Asus Computer CO., LTD. The author intends to discover beneficial experience and provide them to judicial.Whether it is to constitute crime of extort when consumers excessively perform the right of claim. This case raises three theory questions. First one is whether consumers should bear criminal liability when they execute the right of excessive claim. The second one is whether consumers have the right of claiming so large amount of compensation. The third one is whether it is duress to make public to the journalists. The first part of the article discusses the three theory questions and indicates it is Likely to institute the crime of extort when consumers excessively perform the right of claim. Based on the illustration of the first part, the second part specially analyzes the case with the theory of crime of construction and provides concrete result of the case. The third part analyzes the reasons why such cases took place and provides the preventions.Based on the individual case, the article provides some conceptions on the issue that whether it is to institute the crime of extort when consumers excessively perform the right of claim and aims to provide the reasonable suggestion in case that the judicial face the similar cases in the future. But how to determine the nature of such cases, what all the author mentions in the article is just discussion and analysis and needs to be proved whether it is feasible in judicial practice.