June 2009 +065438+ 10, Xiao Zhao took his fiancee to the shopping mall to buy jewelry before the wedding. In front of the jewelry counter, Xiao Zhao's fiancee took a fancy to a diamond ring. Xiao Zhao paid 5000 yuan for this diamond ring. On March 20 10, by chance, Xiao Zhao gave the diamond ring to a friend and took it to the appraisal center for appraisal. The appraisal conclusion is unexpected: the diamond ring is fake. Xiao Zhao immediately found a jewelry counter in a shopping center and demanded compensation. The owner of the jewelry counter said that the jewelry sold by the counter is purchased from regular manufacturers, which is absolutely guaranteed by reputation and there is no possibility of counterfeit goods. Xiao Zhao's diamond ring was definitely not bought at this counter. Xiao Zhao brought a lawsuit to the people's court, demanding that the jewelry counter compensate for its own losses, and submitted the shopping invoice and appraisal conclusion as evidence to the court. A jewelry counter admitted that Xiao Zhao bought a diamond ring worth 5,000 yuan at the counter, but thought that the diamond ring was obviously different from the fake diamond ring held by Xiao Zhao, so he refused to bear the liability for compensation.

[Expert Comment]

In this case, first of all, Xiao Zhao provided the invoice when he bought the diamond ring, which proved that he did have a transaction with a specific object at a certain time and place; Secondly, Xiao Zhao provided the appraisal conclusion of the appraisal center, which proved that its diamond ring was forged. Combining these two pieces of evidence with the statements of both parties (both parties admit that there was a transaction to buy a diamond ring), it can be reasonably concluded that the diamond ring that Xiao Zhao bought at the jewelry counter of a shopping mall is fake.

According to the new facts, Xiao Zhao didn't buy the diamond ring in the jewelry counter, and according to the principle of "whoever claims it, bears the burden of proof", the jewelry counter should bear the burden of proof. However, a jewelry counter did not provide any evidence to prove its claim. If the facts advocated by Xiao Zhao are established, the jewelry counter should bear the adverse litigation consequences.