"Fried shoes" is popular among young people nowadays, and brand-name sneakers with a price tag of more than one thousand yuan can be fried to 20,000 to 30,000. If such sneakers are washed out by a shoe shine shop, how should the responsibilities be divided? On April 22, the People's Court of Xiaoshan District, Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province applied the small claims procedure, and finally concluded a service contract dispute case caused by improper cleaning and care in the first instance.
"Look, judge, the shoes I bought 36,000 have been worn for less than three months and were washed like this. The defendant must pay for it!" The plaintiff Xiaowei said emotionally.
"I only charged 35 yuan for washing a pair of shoes, and now you want me to pay more than 30,000, I don't agree!" The defendant, Liu, also looked helpless. The
thing originated at the end of July last year when Xiaowei bought a pair of joint Chicago white, black and red limited edition sneakers named AJ1OW at a store in Hangzhou at a price of 36,500. On October 2 of the same year, he sent his sneakers to Liu's shoe shine shop for cleaning. Three days later, Xiaowei was surprised when he took the shoes. Both uppers were damaged to varying degrees. Among them, the upper of the right shoe was "unrecognizable", and Liu had replaced the non-original upper by himself. Apart from heartache, Xiaowei asked Liu to compensate according to his purchase price. However, the two sides have too much difference in the value of shoes. On February 24, Xiaowei sued Liu to Xiaoshan Court.
Xiaowei believes that Liu's shoe shine shop was registered in 2012 and has a long time in the industry, so he should understand the value of sneakers in the industry. Moreover, Xiaowei has cherished the sneakers very much in the three months since he bought them. He has only worn it a few times and has a high degree of success.
Da Liu said that although the bill provided by Xiaowei showed that his purchase price in the store was 36,500, the factory price of the sneaker was 1,880 yuan, and the factory was in 2010. The high price was due to the market. I have no objection to the fact that the shoes are damaged, and I am willing to repair the shoe uppers, and compensate them at the factory price of 1880 yuan, and another appropriate compensation of 1,000 yuan. After the trial, the
court held that the value of the sneakers involved in the case cannot be determined solely based on the ex-factory price. The actual value should include the value of appreciation space, and the appreciation space occupies a major part. After washing the sneakers, Liu repaired and replaced the non-original uppers by himself, resulting in a total loss of the value of the sneakers. Combining the depreciation rate of the sneakers, the actual use time, the residual value of the shoes and other factors, on the basis of balancing the interests of both parties, it was determined that 60% of the purchase price of the sneakers was 21,900 yuan as the plaintiff's loss, and Liu was ordered to pay the amount within a deadline. Judge
stated that
Article 60 of the Contract Law stipulates that the parties shall fully perform their obligations in accordance with the agreement. In combination with this case, the key and difficult point of the trial lies in the determination of the plaintiff's actual losses. In this regard, the judge reminded consumers that in the process of consumption, they need to take good care of relevant shopping invoices, receipts and other materials as a basis for claiming rights when disputes arise afterwards. At the same time, service providers also need to confirm the characteristics of related items at the beginning of the transaction, and provide corresponding services based on their characteristics to avoid corresponding conflicts.
Correspondent | Xiao Fa
