Comment On The Case Of The Tort Liability Dispute Between Huang And Ping Halls Company

Since the case of Wang Hai Buy Fake Product on Purpose and claimed double compensation in 1995,the issue about Buy Fake Product on Purpose has been a heated debate for theory and practice field,especially,in the context of making and selling fake products that prominent in China.The issue concerning the Protection of the Consumer's Rights is increasingly concerned by the society,the nation is also hope to crack down on the making and selling fake products by means of punitive damage systems.However,there is a continuous controversy about whether the Buy Fake Product on Purpose apply to punitive compensation.This paper selecting an atypical consumer fraud case that largely exist in our real life,meanwhile,summarizing the referee position of similar case and combining the opinions of the Supreme People's Court Guiding Case No.23.According to analyzing the concept of the "Consumer",the paper believe that state should learn from the extraterritorial legislative experience and learn from the extraterritorial legislative experience to stipulate that consumers are not engage for production by reverse exclusion;the paper analyzing the consumption fraud of managers and point out the criteria for the identification of fraud in the law of Consumer Rights and Interests Protection are different from the standards of the traditional Civil Law.Because the law of Consumer Rights and Interests Protection focuses more on fairness,it is necessary to protect consumers.The Civil Law is stricter than the law of Consumer Rights and Interests Protection in the field of standard of fraud against the operators,namely "Two Essentials".Therefore,in terms of legislative intent of the law of Consumer Rights and Interests Protection,the paper believes that the status and behaviors of Buy Fake Product on Purpose apply to punitive compensation system of law of Consumer Rights and Interests Protection.In this case,although Huang's behavior is Buy Fake Product on Purpose,he is still a consumer and his rights and interests should be protected by the law of Consumer Rights and Interests Protection.However,the enterprise Pinghetang's price fraud acts constitute consumer fraud according to the standard of“Two Essentials",therefore,Huang is entitled to triple indemnify.Protecting the rights of Huang and other consumers who buy fake product on purpose and supporting their legitimate rights and interests are protected by the law of Consumer Rights and Interests Protection,which is in line with the legislative spirit and regulatory of the law of Consumer Rights and Interests Protection and reflects the social justice.