www.pokerface.fora.pl

[marlboro8777]

court held that, Shun Yuen jewelry counter of movie surveillance equipment in the accident of a dispute fair in the harmed state, and the plaintiff submitted, including the and guarantees are not a single customer (the defendant) to sign, and produced by the plaintiffs, could not confirm that refers to the four items is delivered to the defendant.

yesterday morning, the case in Zhongshan City Intermediate People's Court of Final Appeal. The day of the trial, the defendant still did not seem Miss Cheng. Miss Cheng court judge answered why public hearings are not to appear in court three times? The attorney replied that the defendant, Miss Cheng had worked abroad, and she had formerly underwent menaces and even unknown humans bombarded the telephone.
First People's Court of Zhongshan City, August 14, 2008 Unjust Enrichment discussion the admissibility of the case, and has 22 September 2008 day, January 14, 2009 two public hearings.



However, Miss Cheng CUP card payment using the amount of goods, deserving to delinquency of the cashier staff, will enter into the price of 71,

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
,000 yuan 1,000 yuan, 70,000 yuan undercharged.
in the two-hour trial, the original defendant nigh Plaintiffs counsel, the Court of first instance said on the video evidence, when the video is absolutely in the livelihood, but if the membrane can not provide the message to deny the facts, which in itself unreasonable. And in consensus with affair rules, clients do not sign a single product line with matter-of-fact real-time trading habits. As for the testimony of spectators, the Court cashiers and sales staff that kept one interest in the case, insufficient trustworthy. Attorney questioned the plaintiff, no interested person has not perception of how to acquire the testimony of witnesses it?
tribunal in the end, the magistrate asked if the parties agreed to mediation,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], the plaintiffs agreed, merely defense lawyers said in a explicit space without mediation. After nearly two hours of argue in tribunal, the decide finally ruled that the plaintiff's computer to provide a small cash register stamp, merchandise and additional systems to ensure that single-sided evidence, the defendant held the same goods and additional commodities to ensure that evidence single, the court again asked the defendant to heed the trial and issued by the evidence, without providing the evidence held by the defendant. To advocate the plaintiff asked the court to remove the 1st example decree, the defendant returned within 5 days 7 million as unjust enrichment.
February 11 this year, the Court rejected the plaintiff's demand to make the determination.



Final win cashier cried



But defense attorneys insisted, the day of the party to some extent only 1,000 yuan apt buy a couple of 18K diamond stud earrings, and paid a 1,000 yuan remittance. And namely the attorneys namely the plaintiff can not testify that the testify provided by 4 of a commodity delivered apt the process.
plaintiff, a small ticket issued by the computer cash register, sales orders,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], ensuring mandates and process payment of a film and TV information, etc. 9 evidence. However, the defendant disputed that the June 22, 2008, the defendant did not counter the plaintiff's purchase of Shun Yuen jewelry jewelry plaintiff professed complaint, the defendant barely bought the same day a pair of 18K diamond stud earrings, valued at 1,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych],000 yuan,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], and paid . She believes that there is no evidence that the plaintiff lost 70,000 yuan, the plaintiff has no evidence to substantiate its professed detriment of 70,000 yuan on the defendant.

mall told customers ask for 7 million
Court that the malls have to first prove their really referred to four diamonds jewelry delivered to the defendant. This is the original, the defendant disputed the focus of attention.

paragraph after the payment completed, the seller did not carefully retard the computer cash register votes on the small quantity of the four items and two additional items presented and the pertinent testimonials to Miss Cheng. 9 pm that night, onward the source while the jewelry counter in the reconciliation of that revenue was 70,000 yuan. Shopping then promptly made adjoin with Miss Cheng, request consultations the material. However, Miss Cheng was denied ashore the matter. Zhongshan City Stores Management Limited is superior to Miss Cheng then sued to necessitate the return of unfair enrichment.


In appending, the court also held that the plaintiff had three of the four witnesses for the smooth source jewelry sales, the other creature the plaintiff's cashier staff, the four per capita peg in the case. And concluded that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff did not constitute a complete chain of evidence, can not entirely confirm the added value of 71,000 yuan within the meaning of its four items delivered to the defendant.



Nanfang Daily correspondent Hu Ming
eminent, along to plaintiff, Zhongshan City Stores Management Limited, said, June 22, 2008, defendant-way × Britain in the mall's Shun Yuen 18K diamond ring jewelry counter to buy, 18K and 18K diamond stud earrings diamond bracelet a aggregate of four items, the total buy cost of 177,856 yuan. As a normal purchaser,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], behind a long counter the counter queried the mart owner, agreed that the incipient price of the yet discounted account cost of 71,000 yuan sale to process, and presented two annexed absolute merit of 960 gifts.
yesterday thafter alled extra than a year the case of unjust enrichment Intermediate People's Court in Zhongshan City, a retrial, after nearly two hours of debate in court, the judge revoked the first instance verdict, commuted the defendant loses, the return of 7 5 days million for unjust enrichment, take a second instance a total of 3,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych],100 yuan case acceptance fee. Day, cashier, and jewelry sales to prove at the hearing who cried after the ultimate verdict, saying the days of unrest over the elapse year is finally over.
counter sales now issued a

to hear the results of the final sentence, the 3 cried counter sales and cashier, the cashier said, if he loses his wage ambition must bear the 49,000 yuan,

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
, the court's decision also its a just deal.



Shopping first instance of not enough evidence opposition
after the verdict, the trial judge told reporters that when relevant laws and regulations, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant, but defendant has repeatedly evaded.
a matron at the mall jewelry credit card to purchase 71,000 yuan of 4 items,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], cashiers and counter staff for of the negligence of revenue by 7 million. Shopping to the customers ask for 7 million payment was declined,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], then has the other court. In the first instance, the mall lost due to insufficient evidence.
Mall shopping was produced evidence that the amount of 71,

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
,000 yuan. Zhao Yufei photo