Amba

So-so shop ... there is a necessary but not a choice ... but really put an ATM

Normal inexpensive store. Prices are lower than in other stores. Only cashiers are all tired, and in all ambitions. And once there was a very long queue and the cashier said: Why are you all coming here? Have you smeared with honey here?)))))) It even became uncomfortable. I wanted to apologize and go to another store. ))))) But in general it’s normal

To weigh the goods, you have to go around the floor of the store ,,,,, inconvenient

I bought everything I needed ...

Good store. But today an accident occurred, holding a can of non-alcoholic beer in my hands and other products accidentally dropped it from my hands (I didn’t take a basket), it burst and a drink began to flow out of it in a small trickle. I was faced with a dilemma: put the damaged goods back on the shelf and take another, or pay for goods damaged by negligence. This fact went unnoticed by sellers. Well, it’s not possible to keep track of everything, it’s understandable. I was visited by the thought that spoilage of goods by negligence until the time of purchase does not oblige me to reimburse its value on the basis of an article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, namely, article 459. And that the risk of accidental loss of goods in this case relates to the seller. However, having come home and having delved into this situation, I realized that this is not so. It would seem that everything is right, until I paid for the goods and received the check, no one can pass the risk of spoiling the goods onto me. However, my situation is different. Until I have paid for the goods, I am not a buyer and when I cause damage to the store, a completely different article applies to me - 1064 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which says: “Damage caused to the person or property of a citizen, as well as damage to property of a legal entity, is subject to full compensation to the person who caused the harm. ” - The Federal retail trade rules tell us about the same thing (“On the model retail business rules and the basic requirements for the retail network”). | Clause 42 of these rules reads: “In accordance with civil law, regulatory acts when choosing and buying the buyer is obliged to: compensate the enterprise for damage to goods damaged through his fault. ” Therefore, the store has the right to demand from me to pay for damaged goods, and if I do not agree, to get it through the courts. Otherwise, it turns out that you can safely walk around the store, beat the goods and safely retire without paying for the spoiled one. However, in the same article 1064 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation there is a wonderful clause: “The person who caused the harm is exempted from indemnification if he proves that the harm was caused not through his fault.” (For example, when the buyer slipped due to the wet floor and demolished the rack or hollowed his coat in a narrow aisle, touched a jar of cucumbers and broke it. This really can be attributed to the seller’s risks.) Conclusion: according to conscience and law, it was necessary to immediately pay for this can of beer. RESOLVED, tomorrow I will come and pay for the goods spoiled by me by negligence.