Administrative law cases

Classification: Social/Cultural >> Law

Problem description:

On August 13, 2002, Starlight Hotel in a city received a group of "special guests". After weighing the seafood they ordered with their own scales, these guests showed their work permits: the Municipal Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision, and pointed out that they ordered two pounds less seafood. After the inspection, I took out a temporary handwritten note for the store to sign. The store felt that the situation was serious and did not sign it. The store explained that the chef confused the seafood in two boxes when catching seafood, and asked the chef to explain it to the inspectors himself. On August 24th, the Municipal Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision held a press conference, pointing out that after unannounced visits, many hotels and restaurants were found to be short of seafood, and pointed out that according to the sales unit price, Starlight Hotel deducted the most money from consumers at one time. Major media reported on this. Starlight has become the target of public criticism. On September 15, Starlight Hotel requested the court to rule informed criticism's behavior illegal on the grounds that the Municipal Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision determined that his "deliberately underestimating and deducting consumers" constituted administrative infringement, so as to restore his reputation and eliminate the adverse effects.

Q: What is the focus of this case?

If you are the defendant, what kind of debate should you have?

If the plaintiff. In what ways will they prosecute the defendant's behavior?

Thank you for your answers! ! !

Analysis:

Because the bureau has not yet made a decision on administrative punishment for Starlight Hotel, the focus is on whether the behavior of the Municipal Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision is administrative or civil, and secondly whether it is legal or not.

Since the defendant should list all the evidence obtained in the debate, it is necessary to pay special attention to the fact that the above incident is a hotel act rather than a personal act.

As a plaintiff, we should mainly reply from the chef's personal behavior rather than the hotel's behavior. The hotel shall sue the Municipal Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision to the people's court for infringing its reputation, demand the defendant to restore his reputation, publicly apologize and compensate him for the economic losses caused.