it has not adequately demonstrated its worth 71

dtjughj1b2a

?
A woman at the mall credit card to buy a total of 71,000 yuan jewelry four commodities,doudoune parajumpers, as well as negligence cashier counter staff received 70,000 yuan less. When the customer refused to ask for 70,000 yuan shopping money, ordered the other court. In the first instance, the mall lost due to insufficient evidence.
Yesterday, the last year of unjust enrichment cases in Zhongshan City Intermediate People's Court for retrial, after nearly two hours of debate in court, the judge revoked the first instance verdict, commuted the defendant loses, the return of 70,000 yuan within five days of unjust enrichment, bear a second instance court costs a total of 3100 yuan. Day testifying cashier and jewelry salespeople and cried after hearing the final judgment, saying that the day of unrest over the past year is finally over.
Shopping sue customers ask for 70,000 yuan
According to the plaintiff Zhongshan City Stores superior Management Co.,louboutin femme pas cher, said June 22, 2008, the defendant Cheng × Ying Shun Yuen jewelry counter at the mall to buy a diamond ring 18K, 18K and 18K diamond stud earrings diamond bracelet total of four items,http://repository.aitech.ac.jp, total price of 177,856 yuan. Because it is a regular customer, after a long counter cabinet shop owner to consult and agree with the price already discounted that the original price of 71,000 yuan sold to Cheng, and two bonus total value of 960 yuan gifts.
Counter sales staff immediately issued a "commodity sales alone," above indicate the name / specification model for "18K Diamond" and the number "4" and other pieces of information, in fact, receive the balance of 71,000 yuan.
However, when using the CUP card payment Miss Cheng said commodity funds, due to the negligence of the cashier staff to the effect, the price of 71,woolrich donna,000 yuan to 1000 yuan input, less received 70,000 yuan.
After the payment, the salesperson did not carefully check the small amount of votes on the computer cash register,http://sportsfan.jpn.org/cgi-kban/sunbbs.cgi?mode=form&no=173&page=, the four items as well as two bonus items and related credentials to Miss Cheng. 9:00 that night, when the jewelry counter-source reconciliation that received 70,000 yuan less. Shopping with Miss Cheng then promptly made contact, request consultations deal with the matter. But Ms. Cheng was denied on the matter. Zhongshan City Stores superior Management Limited will then Ms. Cheng to court to demand the return of unjust enrichment.
Insufficient evidence mall lost the first trial
First People's Court in Zhongshan City August 14, 2008 accepted the dispute case of unjust enrichment, and has at September 22,http://shijihuafu.com/forum/home.php?mod=space&uid=334121, 2008, January 14, 2009 two public hearings.
The plaintiff issued a computer cash register small ticket, merchandise sales orders, to ensure that nine of evidence,http://test2.csix.cn/bbs/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=111203, such as single and video information when a payment process. However, the defendant argued that the June 22, 2008, the defendant did not buy in the plaintiff's Shun Yuen jewelry counter complaint alleged jewelry plaintiff, the defendant in the day just to buy a pair of diamond stud earrings 18K, worth $ 1000, and has been paid . She believes that there is no evidence that the plaintiff lost 70,000 yuan, the plaintiff has no evidence of its alleged loss of 70,000 yuan related to the accused.
Court that the mall should first be referred to justify the four diamond jewelry delivered to the defendant. This is the primary focus of the defendants dispute lies.
The court held that the jewelry counter-source video surveillance equipment in the event of a dispute happens in a damaged state, and the plaintiff submitted include "merchandise sales alone," computer cash register small ticket goods sold signs and did not ensure that a single client ( defendant) signature confirmation, and produced by the plaintiffs, could not confirm it within the meaning of the four commodity is delivered to the defendant.
In addition, the court also held that the plaintiff had three of the four witnesses for Shunyuan jewelry salespeople, another person plaintiff cashier staff,http://bbs.jzv0.org/home.php?mod=space&uid=10231, a stake in the case of the four per capita. And concluded that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff did not constitute a complete chain of evidence, it has not adequately demonstrated its worth 71,000 yuan within the meaning of the four items delivered to the defendant.
February 11 this year, the court dismissed the plaintiff's request to make a decision.
Final win cashier cried
Yesterday morning, the case in Zhongshan City Intermediate People's Court of Final Appeal. The day of the trial, the defendant did not appear Ms. Cheng still. Miss Cheng court judge questioned why a public hearing is not to appear in court three times? The defendant attorney replied that Ms. Cheng had gone abroad, but she had previously suffered intimidation phone even unknown persons attacked.
In more than two hours of the trial, the original defendant around "whether to buy a 71,000 yuan of goods," the focus of the debate again. Plaintiffs' lawyers think about the video evidence in the Court of First Instance mentioned, when the video is indeed in service, but if the film does not provide information on the denial, which in itself is unreasonable. And in accordance with the business rules, signatures are also realistic real-time trading habits of consumers are not commodity list. As for the testimony of witnesses, the court held that the sales staff and cashiers and deposit interest cases, insufficient to be accepted. But plaintiffs' lawyers questioned, no interested person has no knowledge of how to obtain the testimony of witnesses it?
But defense lawyers insisted,moncler uomo,http://www.winedin.com/sauerkraut/pair_food_wine.php?food=register.cgi, the way a party that day only 1,000 yuan to buy one pair of diamond stud earrings 18K and pay 1,000 yuan of money. And the lawyer believes that the evidence provided by the plaintiff can not prove that the four items delivered to a certain way.
Court in the end, the judge asked whether the parties agree to mediation,basket nike requin, the plaintiffs agreed,http://www.foss.lk/comment/profile.php?uid=62, but defense lawyers made it clear that there is no mediation space. After nearly two hours of debate in court, the judge finally ruled that computer cash register small ticket, merchandise and other lines to ensure that the single-sided evidence provided by the plaintiff, the defendant is also guaranteed to hold merchandise single commodities such evidence, the court repeatedly asked the defendant to attend the trial and issued by the evidence, but without providing evidence held by the defendant. Support for the plaintiff asked the court to revoke the first instance verdict, the defendant requires the return of unjust enrichment of $ 70,000 within five days.
When you hear the final verdict result,http://www.pjzjz.com/forum/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=592183, three counter sales staff and cashiers and cried, the cashier said, if he loses himself will have to bear the 49,000 yuan in compensation, the court's decision also its a fair deal.
After the verdict in the end, the trial judge told reporters that the next though is "who advocate who burden of proof", but the plaintiff did not meet such new evidence provided, the two sides pull clear of the case, according to the relevant laws and regulations, the burden of proof would fall to the defendant, but the defendant has repeatedly avoided.
Nanfang Daily reporter Hu Ming