Double sinks ham Sausage eat maggots double sinks factory said willing to pay

This year, lunar, citizen Chen in Hefei Lakeside Wetland Forest Park to buy a pair of ham sausage to eat a similar "Maggot" object after the incident, February 21, the double sinks said, Mr. Chen bought Ham is the company's products, the ham intestine because of "external causes" and caused problems, and expressed willingness to pay for the price of Ham sausage compensation. However, the double sinks do not indicate that the quality of their products is problematic. Ham Sausage Department from the Lok City shopping malls February 21, Hefei le City supermarket operations, deputy general manager Shenhua said, Mr. Chen lunar in the lakeside Wetland Forest Park to buy the double Exchange card "Wang Wang" 38 grams of ham is the supermarket supply of goods. "After investigation, the Wetland Park has been in my commercial, we have invoices." "And for why the supermarket last produced the product list did not buy the ham and sausage lot number, Mr. Shen said it may be because of the statistical time" mistaken. Double sinks admit "problem ham sausage" non-fake consumer Mr. Chen buys to "the problem ham sausage", February 21, the general manager of Chuyahu Group Hefei office went to Le City supermarket to deal with this matter. Chu said that after investigating Mr. Chen bought Ham sausage is indeed the company's products, "not fakes." As for Mr. Chen's question on the quality of Ham sausage, Chu said, "The ham may be due to external causes of problems, if consumers have doubts about product quality, can be submitted to the authoritative departments for inspection." "For this" external cause, "Chu manager said he would not do too much explaining. However, Zhou, an agent in Hefei, said recently that the cause of similar "maggot" objects may have been caused by the extrusion of the ham sausage during transportation and the damage of the outer packing, which caused mildew. "Because the incident happened in lunar, so we didn't get to the scene at the first time, and I apologize for that," he said. Chu manager said, "As long as the products are double sinks, no matter what the link out of the problem, we will be responsible for consumers." "Double remittance" is willing to "compensation" "" the standard is a loss of ten, but we take into account the special circumstances of this matter, we are willing to buy the price of ham and sausage customers 100 times times as compensation, but also to pay some other related costs. "Bi Hui Group Hefei Office general manager Chuyahu said, after calculation, the double sinks group is willing to compensate the consumer to pay the personal name currency 400 yuan." In response to the double sinks group's commitment to pay, the public, Mr. Chen said unacceptable, "there are three children eating ham sausage to produce physical discomfort, to the hospital to check the cost of personal names more than 1000 yuan, at the same time for this matter, I delayed the work, and drove many times, the oil fee is Mr. Chen said he asked the company not only to pay for the expenses incurred in the purchase of Ham, but also to pay for the medical expenses, the tardiness fee and the oil fee. "With regard to compensation for medical expenses, consumers are required to provide reliable evidence that the medical expenses incurred as a result of the consumption of double sinks are, we are willing to pay." We can also discuss other expenses that the consumer has put forward. Chu said. It is understood that, due to the issue of compensation, the two sides have differences, the deadline for the small series, the two sides are still not consensus。 The lawyer said that the public demanded reasonable but need to prove that the public ate the "problem ham sausage", the manufacturers should be how to compensate? On this issue, the small series consulted the relevant people in the legal profession in Hefei. Zhou Song, a lawyer at Anhui Liang, said that consumers could claim additional costs such as medical expenses and tardiness fees from manufacturers, but sufficient evidence was needed to prove that the extra costs were produced by eating the product, or the manufacturers could not compensate.