The most popular Tianjin citizens think that the d

Tianjin citizens believe that the decoration center uses fake latex paint

Tianjin citizens believe that the decoration center uses fake latex paint

May 26, 2015

[China paint information] a citizen in Tianjin believes that the decoration center uses fake latex paint, and posted posts and videos on SouFun and Youku to "expose", which was prosecuted by the other party. The court of first instance held that the conclusion reached by the citizen who unilaterally entrusted the identification department and tested without the presence of the plaintiff was not legitimate. In the absence of sufficient evidence, the behavior of posting posts and videos infringed the plaintiff's rights, so it was ordered to apologize to the plaintiff. Recently, the second intermediate people's Court of our city upheld the verdict of the first instance

Mr. Mai is the legal representative of a decoration company. Ms. Wang and Mr. Mai's decoration company signed the "Tianjin residential decoration project construction contract". The contract stipulates that the decoration Center will decorate Ms. Wang's house, and contract for labor and some materials. After one month and 18 days of construction, Ms. Wang signed at the customer on each page of the construction management manual. More than a year later, Ms. Wang contacted a company in Shanghai and entrusted the company to identify the indoor air of her house

soon, Ms. Wang published an article on the theme of "a decoration company (a decoration company with Mr. Mai as the legal representative) semi packaged fake Dulux emulsion paint" in SouFun, and uploaded a video titled "the new house is decorated into a poison gas slow-release capsule partl" on Youku. There are subtitles of "thanks: the builder of poison gas sustained-release capsule, a decoration company in Tianjin (the decoration company with Mr. Mai as the legal representative) and its latex paint supplier"

Mr. Mai and his decoration company, which is the legal representative, believed that Ms. Wang's move was extremely inappropriate, so they sued her to the court and requested the court to order Ms. Wang to apologize to the plaintiff and eliminate the adverse effects through SouFun and Youku according to the law, and order Ms. Wang to pay 79000 yuan of damages to her. The legal costs of this case were borne by the defendant. It was enough to choose a level 1 experimental machine for general material experiments

it is clearly Mr. Mai's decoration center that is responsible for the decoration, but why does Ms. Wang mention the decoration company with Mr. Mai as the legal representative in the article and video? In this regard, Ms. Wang explained that she was actually targeting the decoration center

the court of first instance held that the defendant unilaterally entrusted the identification department to detect the air in his house without notifying the plaintiff to be present. The identification conclusion was not legitimate and should not be accepted. In the absence of any sufficient and effective evidence, the defendant disseminated false information that was detrimental to the reputation of the plaintiff's decoration company through networks. The defendant's behavior was subjectively at fault, and there were obvious facts of defamation and slander of others' reputation in the objective aspect. If the defendant does encounter problems such as product quality in the decoration process, it should be solved through proper channels. It should not spread false statements on the network and infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff. Although the defendant claimed that posting was only part 1 of dry pressed ceramic tiles: ceramic tiles gb/t4100.1 ⑴ 999 was aimed at the decoration center and had nothing to do with the plaintiff's decoration company, the title and video subtitles posted by the defendant on SouFun and Youku involved the plaintiff's decoration company, so the two plaintiffs' request that the defendant apologize to it through SouFun and Youku should be supported. Because the two plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient and effective evidence to prove that they suffered economic losses, they did not support the two plaintiffs' claim for the defendant to pay damages on how to test the fatigue performance of the spring compensator in the subway