Men make shopping smart phones, high imitation goods-receipt there is a cottage, smart phones-IT news

Principal colleague buy a new mobile phone from the mobile website, but are "knockoffs." Then, Ding Xue a compensation of the purchasers of the public phone 799 Yuan. On March 30, the reporter learned from the liuzhou city intermediate people's Court, and eventually sit on the unofficial Web site of the court ordering a cell phone is the direct cause of the loss, and that of Ding's own fault, upheld the first instance decision, by a compensation Ding Xue mobile phone loss 479.4.

In April 2015, Ding Xue 800 Yuan, he helped buy a brand of mobile phone from the mobile phone website. A month later, Xue told Ding, phone is purchased. Due to sit a say to themselves on their official website the day before buying the phone difficult, Ding on its website a suspected cell phone is purchased, so they asked, Xue did not reply. Cell phone use failed shortly after, Ding to the mobile phone authorized service centers repairing mobile, but was informed by maintenance personnel phone is "Cottage", could not be given maintenance, leading to Ding handset not work correctly for a long time.

Ding Xue spoofing himself in a purchase, think, so will sit to liubei District Court, claims to buy phones 799 Yuan.

Liubei District Court believes that Xue is a person with full civil capacity, and some online shopping experience. Therefore, on the unofficial Web site to buy phones, are likely to buy fake mobile phones, Xue can foresee the consequences . But Xue did not take normal measures (on the official website of brand mobile phone buying) to avoid the consequences of which resulted in plaintiff purchased the phone are faked. Following the discovery of the problem, Xue has not taken any measures to compensate for the damage being inflicted on the plaintiff, not the obligation to do good, careful handling the entrusted affair, there is gross negligence, the plaintiff's loss should be liable.

Meanwhile, Ding pickup and was personally involved in the inspection process, and its final beneficiaries as a matter of principal, should carefully verify the authenticity of mobile phones, for better or worse, and after cell phone are faked, should take the initiative and actively contact seller by means of rights to make up for their losses. However, he did not actually due diligence to comply with these obligations, there is a fault, should also bear the responsibility for the loss.

Therefore, according to the faults on both sides of the Court, judgment Mr bear the liability for damages of 60%, Ding 40% of the loss; it should sit some compensation for loss of phone fees to plaintiffs 479.4, Ding's own 319.6 Yuan loss.

Ding appealed against the judgment of first instance, to liuzhou city intermediate people's Court of appeal, dismissed the appeal and upheld the.

男子托人网购智能手机，收货竟成高仿货 - 山寨机,智能手机 - IT资讯

委托同事在手机官网购买一台新手机，不料到手的却是“山寨货”。于是，市民丁某要求薛某赔偿购买手机款799元。3月30日，记者从柳州市中级法院获悉，法院最终认定薛某在非官方网站上订购手机是导致损失产生的直接原因，而丁某自身亦存在过错，维持一审判决，由薛某赔偿丁某手机损失479.4元。

2015年4月，丁某给薛某800元，让他在某手机官网帮购买某品牌手机。一个月后，薛某告诉丁某，手机已购得。由于前一天薛某才跟自己说在官网上抢购该手机比较困难，丁某怀疑手机并非在官方网站上购买，故再三询问，薛某均未吭声。手机使用不久后便出故障，丁某到该手机授权维修中心维修手机，却被维修人员告知手机是“山寨”的，不能给予维修，导致丁某手机长期无法正常使用。

丁某认为薛某在购机中欺骗了自己，于是将薛某诉至柳北区法院，索赔购买手机款799元。

柳北区法院审理认为，薛某是完全民事行为能力人，并且具有一定的网上购物经验。因此，在非官方网站上购买手机，很有可能买到假冒手机，薛某完全能够预见这样的后果。但是，薛某并没有采取正常的措施（即在品牌手机官方网站上购买）避免该后果的发生，结果导致原告购到的手机是假冒产品。发现这一问题之后，薛某也并没有采取任何措施，来弥补对原告造成的损失，未尽到善意、谨慎处理委托事务的义务，存在重大过失，应该对原告的损失承担赔偿责任。

同时，丁某亲自参与了取货和验货的过程，其作为委托事项的最终受益人，应该谨慎地验明手机的真伪、好坏，并且在发现手机是假冒产品后，应当主动、积极地联系卖家，通过维权手段弥补自己的损失。但是，他实际上并没有尽职地履行上述义务，存在一定的过错，对损失亦应承担相应的责任。

因此，法院根据双方过错，判决薛某承担60%的损失赔偿责任，丁某承担40%的损失责任；故薛某应向原告赔偿手机损失费479.4元，丁某自行承担319.6元的损失。

丁某不服一审判决，上诉至柳州市中级法院，中院驳回上诉，维持原判。