tod's outlettods outlettod's outletCashier pressed

a woman at the mall jewelry credit card to purchase 71,000 yuan of 4 items, cashiers and counter staff because of the negligence of revenue by 7 million. Shopping to the customers ask for 7 million payment was declined, then has the other court. In the first instance, the mall lost due to insufficient evidence.
yesterday that lasted more 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 3,100 yuan case acceptance fee. Day, cashier, and jewelry sales to testify in the hearing officer cried after the final ruling, saying the days of unrest over the past year is finally over.
mall told customers ask for 7 million

excellent, according 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 total of four items, the total purchase price of 177,856 yuan. As a regular customer, after a long counter the counter asked the shop owner, agreed that the original price of the already discounted list price of 71,000 yuan sale to process, and presented two additional total value of 960 gifts.
counter sales immediately issued a
However, Miss Cheng CUP card payment using the amount of goods, due to negligence of the cashier staff, will enter into the price of 71,000 yuan 1,000 yuan, 70,000 yuan undercharged.
paragraph after the payment completed, the salesperson did not carefully check the computer cash register votes on the small amount of the four items and two additional items presented and the relevant credentials to Miss Cheng. 9 pm that night, along the source when the jewelry counter in the reconciliation of that revenue was 70,000 yuan. Shopping then promptly made contact with Miss Cheng, request consultations the matter. However, Miss Cheng was denied on the matter. Zhongshan City Stores Management Limited is superior to Miss Cheng then sued to require the return of unjust enrichment.
Shopping first instance of insufficient evidence against

First People's Court of Zhongshan City, August 14, 2008 Unjust Enrichment dispute the admissibility of the case, and has 22 September 2008 day, January 14, 2009 two public hearings.
plaintiff, a small ticket issued by the computer cash register, sales orders, ensuring orders and process payment of a film and television information, etc. 9 evidence. However, the defendant argued that the June 22, 2008, the defendant did not counter the plaintiff's purchase of Shun Yuen jewelry jewelry plaintiff alleged complaint, the defendant merely bought the same day a pair of 18K diamond stud earrings,tods men, valued at 1,000 yuan, and paid . She believes that there is no evidence that the plaintiff lost 70,000 yuan, the plaintiff has no evidence to substantiate its alleged loss of 70,000 yuan on the defendant.
Court that the malls must first prove their actually referred to four diamonds jewelry delivered to the defendant. This is the original, the defendant disputed the focus of attention.
court held that,tods outlet, Shun Yuen jewelry counter of video surveillance equipment in the event of a dispute just in the damaged 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.
In addition, the court also held that the plaintiff had three of the four witnesses for the smooth source jewelry sales, the other being the plaintiff's cashier staff,tod's outlet, the four per capita stake in the case. And concluded that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff did not constitute a complete chain of evidence, can not fully confirm the added value of 71,000 yuan within the meaning of its four items delivered to the defendant.
February 11 this year, the Court rejected the plaintiff's claim to make the 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 still did not appear Miss Cheng. Miss Cheng court judge questioned why three public hearing are not present in court? The attorney replied that the defendant, Miss Cheng had gone abroad, and she had previously suffered threats and even unknown persons attacked the telephone.
in the two-hour trial, the original defendant around Plaintiffs counsel, the Court of first instance mentioned on the video evidence, when the video is indeed in the maintenance, but if the film can not provide the information to deny the facts, which in itself unreasonable. And in accordance with business rules, consumers do not sign a single product line with realistic real-time trading habits. As for the testimony of witnesses, the Court cashiers and sales staff that kept an interest in the case, insufficient credible. Attorney questioned the plaintiff, no interested person has no knowledge of how to obtain the testimony of witnesses it?
But defense lawyers insisted, the day of the party in a way only 1,000 yuan to buy a pair of 18K diamond stud earrings, and paid a 1,000 yuan payment. And that the lawyers that the plaintiff can not prove that the evidence provided by four of a commodity delivered to the process.
court in the end, the judge asked whether the parties agreed to mediation, the plaintiffs agreed, but defense lawyers said in a clear space without mediation. After nearly two hours of debate in court, the judge finally ruled that the plaintiff's computer to provide a small cash register ticket, merchandise and other systems to ensure that single-sided evidence, the defendant held the same goods and other commodities to ensure that evidence alone, the court repeatedly asked the defendant to attend the trial and issued by the evidence, without providing the evidence held by the defendant. To support the plaintiff requested the court to remove the first instance verdict, the defendant in 5 days to return 70,000 yuan of unjust enrichment.
to hear the results of the final sentence, the three cried counter sales and cashier, the cashier said, if he loses his compensation will have to bear the 49,000 yuan, the court's decision also its a fair deal.