Harbin high price fish, the price tag does not mean no fraud noreply

"Harbin price fish", the price tag is not representative of Harbin no fraud tourists eat fish consumption million restaurants: blatantly original title: "Harbin price fish", price tag does not mean no fraud during the Spring Festival, the price is slightly higher than vivid discussions catering market can understand, this is the role of market mechanisms in. But you cannot use the "price tags" under the guise of any "rip off", the price is reasonable, fair measurement does not use the threat of violence even bargain rights, consumer disputes, it is necessary to have. Last year "eleven" made "Qingdao shrimp raise a Babel of criticism of the door", a suspected companion — "Harbin price of fish". Jiangsu tourists said Mr. Chen, the second is tour guide into a restaurant near Harbin attractions, the fish price of only 398 yuan and 298 yuan (FISH) two. After that, they ordered three fish. Checkout, as high as 10 thousand yuan, of which 5731 yuan (dauricus total consumption of 14.4 kg). Mr. Chen believes that the store is written more weight, there are "cheating" behavior, the two sides dispute. According to Chen, suddenly rushed out of the store more than a dozen people forced them to pay the bill, the old man was hit. After the alarm, the police did not properly handle, said "can not solve, we must first arrest people". Mr. Chen reluctantly paid, after discussing on the Internet, and drying out their photos of injuries. The stores in the "Beijing News" interview, said that this is the "price tag". Objectively speaking, the current key information event has not been verified, "cheating" and "price tag" is a one-sided statement. However, the event can clear responsibility "controversy" in which, this is also the Heilongjiang local should be disclosed to the public. First of all, the "price tag" does not mean there is no fraud, credit management should include equity measurement, consumption risk prompt truthfully. Food prices do not belong to the government price control range, in principle, as long as the two sides agreed to, but the "consumer protection law" gives consumers the right to know and even bargain rights should be guaranteed. Beijing News reporter consulted a number of local restaurants, priced at 80 yuan per catty that fish to 100 yuan, but also local chowhound said the price is three hundred or four hundred yuan, Huang yu. In fact, the "controversy" is the "law" Tenth article: when consumers buy goods, have the right to obtain a reasonable price, such as the correct measurement conditions even bargain. Mr. Chen as foreign tourists, the hotel was brought to the unfamiliar 9 o’clock at night, to a certain extent, consumer choice is limited, so the local market supervision departments should find out is: one, 398 yuan a pound of fish, not to "eliminate" clear "reasonable price"? Two, the hotel has no fair measure? If it is operating in good faith, there is no "cheating" thought, a fish sold for five thousand or six thousand yuan, they must confirm the weight and price to the customer, to the pot. This is one of the basic norms of the commercial and business; on the contrary, some "black" is love beforehand be vague, after the release of the high prices, last year’s "Qingdao prawns door" 38 yuan to sell only to the prawns, is this kind of activity. Secondly, the dispute after 9

“哈尔滨天价鱼”,明码标价不代表无欺诈 游客哈尔滨吃鱼消费万元 餐厅:明码实价   原标题:“哈尔滨天价鱼”,明码标价不代表无欺诈   议论风生   春节期间餐饮价格稍高于市价可以理解,这是市场机制在起作用。但不能用“明码标价”的幌子任意“宰客”,价格合理、公平计量等公平交易权,发生纠纷之后不使用暴力威胁消费者,都是必需的。   去年“十一”闹得沸沸扬扬的“青岛大虾门”,疑似出了姐妹篇――“哈尔滨天价鱼”。江苏游客陈先生称,大年初二被导游带进了哈尔滨某景点附近的一家餐厅,结果发现鱼的价格只有398元(鳇鱼)和298元两种。之后,他们点了三条鱼。结账时,竟然高达1万多元,其中鳇鱼为5731元(共消费14.4斤)。陈先生认为店家写多了斤两,存在“宰客”行为,双方发生争执。   按陈先生的说法,突然店里冲出十几人逼他们付账,老人被打。报警后,民警没有妥善处理,称“解决不了,就要先拘人”。陈先生无奈付钱,之后在网上讨说法,并晒出了自己受伤的照片。而店家在接受《新京报》采访时,表示这是“明码标价”。   客观地说,目前事件的关键信息还没有得到核实,“宰客”和“明码标价”都是一面之辞。但是,可以明确事件责任的“争议点”在哪,这也是黑龙江当地应该向公众披露的。   首先,“明码标价”不代表就没有欺诈行为,诚信经营应该包括公平计量、如实提示消费风险等。   餐饮价格不属于政府价格管制范围,原则上只要双方达成一致即可,但是《消费者权益保护法》赋予消费者的知情权和公平交易权应该得到保障。新京报记者咨询了当地多家餐厅,得知鳇鱼每斤售价在80元至100多元,但也有当地的“吃货”表示,鳇鱼价格就是三四百元。   其实,此案的“争议点”在于《消法》第10条明确:消费者在购买商品时,有权获得价格合理、计量正确等公平交易条件。陈先生作为外地游客,在夜间9点被带到人生地不熟的饭店,一定程度上消费选择权是受限制的,所以当地市场监督部门应该查明的是:一者,398元一斤鱼,算不算《消法》明确的“价格合理”?二者,饭店有没有公平计量?   如果真是诚信经营,不存在“宰客”心思,一条鱼卖到五六千元,事前必须向顾客确认重量和价格,之后才能下锅烹饪。这是一个基本的商业规范和生意经;相反,一些“黑店”是喜欢事前讲得含糊,事后放出高价的,去年“青岛大虾门”38元大虾按只卖,搞的就是这种勾当。   其次,发生纠纷之后,饭店有没有使用暴力、威胁手段逼消费者就范?若有,这种强买强卖的行为,严重损害消费者的人身权利,涉嫌治安管理违法,甚至可能涉嫌“强迫交易罪”。   再者,在发生冲突之后,当地警方有没有“拉偏手”,以“解决不了,先拘了”威胁消费者付账?就像去年“青岛大虾门”一样,当地警方的默许导致“宰客”商家的疯狂,也最终导致青岛乃至山东花数亿元打造的旅游品牌崩坏。   游客到旅游景点的饭店消费,尤其是春节期间,价格稍高于市价可以理解,这是市场机制在起作用。但是,不能用“明码标价”的幌子任意“宰客”,价格合理、公平计量等公平交易权,发生纠纷之后不使用暴力威胁消费者,都是必需的。而这些,才是这起惊动全国的消费纠纷的“争议点”所在。   □徐明轩(法律工作者) 责任编辑:李清 SN219相关的主题文章:

Comments are closed.