5 yuan lighter chuai pocket ignited ten thousand yuan coat, lighter manufacturer compensation 5000 yuan
Zhang paid 5 yuan for a lighter at a grocery store, and half an hour later, it set fire to his windbreaker, which was worth 10,000 yuan.Lighter manufacturers have agreed to pay Zhang 5,000 yuan in compensation after a trial and mediation by the Shanghai Jinshan District People’s Court, the Paper learned on March 15.Shanghai Jinshan Court, Mr Zhang is a businessman, one day when talking with customers, standing face to face customers found Mr Zhang’s coat suddenly burst out of flames.Alarmed after Mr. Zhang quickly took off his clothes, two people scrambled to extinguish the flames.Fortunately, the danger was discovered in time and did not directly harm personal safety, but Mr. Zhang’s coat was burned a big hole, emitting a bad smell of burning.As Mr. Zhang picked up his coat from the ground, a blackened cigarette lighter fell from his pocket. He had bought it at a grocery store half an hour earlier and put it in his coat pocket.Otherwise, Mr. Zhang would have talked to the shop owner for an apology and some compensation. However, the garment, which was bought less than two months ago, is still from BURBERRY, a luxury brand, and is worth 10,000 yuan.Mr. Zhang took the damaged clothes and a lighter to the grocery store to beg, asking the boss according to the clothes sold 10,000 yuan for compensation.Mr. Zhang bought the lighter for 5 yuan and asked for 2,000 times as much compensation. The grocery store owner refused to agree, pointing out that he would contact the lighter manufacturer to find out whether it was a defective product.Seeing things dragging, Mr. Zhang then sued the grocery store and lighter manufacturer to the court, asking for a refund of three, and compensation for the loss of 10, 000 yuan clothes.The manufacturer said it was willing to compensate, but Mr. Zhang’s clothes were not new, had been worn for a period of time, should be depreciated after calculating the loss.Mr. Zhang is firm request full amount compensation, wear only more than a month, how also can’t say is old clothes, even if want depreciation also can’t calculate how much.At the hearing stage of the case, the judge said that at present, Mr. Zhang, the grocery store and the manufacturer basically had no objection to the fact of damage. If the three parties could not reach an agreement on the amount of loss, they could only entrust a third-party organization to carry out the evaluation, which may increase litigation costs and produce unnecessary expenditures for all parties.If the mediation fails, or disputes arise over the cause of the damage, further identification of the cause of the fire and lighter quality will only complicate the problem.After the judge’s careful explanation and patient persuasion, the three parties finally took a step back, and the manufacturer agreed to compensate Mr. Zhang 5000 yuan, which was fulfilled on the spot.The court introduces, consumer is damaged because of product blemish, can ask the person that sell assumes responsibility of breach of contract, also can ask its to assume tort liability.This case is a typical harm payment, namely the delivery of unqualified products, not only can not be used normally, but also endanger the original rights and interests of consumers before buying behavior.Although the grocery store has paid For Mr. Zhang’s lighter, but the lighter is defective in quality, not only so that Mr. Zhang’s use of lighter performance interests are infringed, and their own clothing inherent interests are also infringed.Where the tortious act and the breach act concur, one or the other may claim the right.In this case, Mr. Zhang chose to compensate for the tort liability of clothing damage.