In mid-June, 2020, 5438+065438+ 10, the mobile communication overlord clause was exposed on the Internet again. A Shanxi Ms. Liu was actually signed a 833-year package when she was handling a mobile nickname. Netizens said: If I sign this package, can I live for 833 years? ? What is the cause of this matter? It turned out that on July 7, 2008, 2065438, Ms. Liu went to the business hall and chose two beautiful numbers, but the numbers could not be assigned. In order to open the card smoothly, the salesperson at that time contacted Wen Xizhi to handle the card with Ms. Liu.

However, Wenxi Sub-branch did not inform Ms. Liu that the two cards were bound to the life-long package of 158 yuan. After discovering this, Ms. Liu felt cheated because no one told her about it when she handled it, and the package agreement was not signed by her, but by the branch. Ms. Liu was not convinced, filed a lawsuit and finally reached a settlement with the mobile company. I have the following two views on this matter.

No merchant is qualified to sign on behalf of customers without authorization. In this incident, the mobile company signed the package agreement without the authorization of the customer, and did not inform the customer of the package content. This is a hidden consumption in law. Customers have the right to ask them to return the losses and compensate for certain expenses. When we sell products, we must never hide them from consumers, let alone deceive them. This is a legal responsibility.

After purchasing products, consumers must protect their rights if they find that they have been cheated by businesses. In this incident, Ms. Liu found that the mobile company had bound herself a lifetime package of 158 yuan, and resolutely took up legal weapons to safeguard her rights and interests. In the end, she not only lifted the parcel, but also got back the phone bill she had paid in the past. In case of such a thing, we should also safeguard our own rights and interests, and we should not let businesses run amok.

Many people will sell fake goods with little value, which is cheating consumers. However, if the commodity price is not much different from the real price, although the merchant raises the price first and then discounts it, the consumer has no loss, so it is not cheating the consumer in essence. In a word, I don't think it is cheating consumers to raise the price first and then discount, because first of all, the goods are clearly marked, and it is normal for consumers to raise the price first and then discount if they don't want it. Many consumers also know in their hearts that as long as there is little difference between the real goods and the price, consumers will have no loss.