"Double eleven" to buy "special offer" goods, the court may "retreat one lose three"
"Double eleven" is coming, a lot of people shopping cart is full to the brim, spoiling a consumer - why do some "special offer" goods, always can not buy?
Haidian court in November 7th three "special offer" common secret trick, and to remind consumers, if the merchant can be sued for fraud, "a claim three".
Case: Flash sale price, is a fraud
Wang in the last year "double 11" before, after the charge treasure of a business, the business advertisement said: 11 11 April a time flash sale, the original price 69 yuan, only sell 49 yuan.
The "double 11" on the same day, Wang quickly to panic buying, after submitting the order, not to look at the price payment immediately. Wang received only to find goods ready to complete the payment, the purchase price is 69 yuan. Unsuccessful negotiations with the customer service business, Wang price on the grounds of fraud to the court, requesting revocation of the online shopping contract, and retreat one lose three".
The trial, the merchant said, when consumers and businesses need special offer, but communication change price, if consumers do not offer, then the default consumers to purchase price.
In this regard, the court held that, first of all, the online shopping contract has been established: Although businesses take the network sales panic buying has particularity, namely the needs of consumers in a short period of time make Said the purchase of meaning, but Wang orders will complete the purchase contract, and other businesses did not default conditions, therefore, the establishment of the contract.
Moreover, businesses have a deliberate fraud to consumers. Because businesses set in advance on the website in the low price of 49 yuan, is the low price to attract consumers to buy, so wang buy charging treasure at the price of 69 yuan, is not the true meaning of.
Ultimately, the court upheld the verdict Wang Wang's claim, refund charge treasure, businesses should compensate Wang 500 yuan, and refund the purchase price 69 yuan.
Judge: minimum price fraud compensation 500 yuan
The judge reminded consumers, after the price discovery is wrong, should pay attention to the preservation of evidence, such as related screenshot. For time cost considerations, may consult, and the business failed to court for prosecution. Usually the domicile of the consumer court has the jurisdiction, the convenience of consumers.
According to consumer law, if the business fraud, consumers can request "from a paid 3, compensation 500 yuan, 500 yuan compensation can be guaranteed. This is to protect consumers, but also to punish unscrupulous businessmen.
Case: low price is the wrong price? Businesses should bear responsibility for mistakes
Many people in the "double eleven" when shopping, encountered such a situation, the price of goods is very low, but the single, businesses with no goods or wrong price on the grounds, refused to refund only delivery. What about this situation?
Last year, Zhang saw a tablet computer each merchant price is only 161.99 yuan, then immediately orders. When ordering merchants "check orders:" when you choose our products and services that you have accepted the company's privacy statement and the conditions of use "" you click on the button after confirmation of the order, we will send you an email or SMS to confirm that we have received your order. We send you an email or SMS to inform you after goods are shipped between us and your order contract was set up."
Soon after, the site to send mail Zhang said: because of shortages, will not be able to meet your product ordering intention; if you have made the payment for this item, the corresponding amount will be returned to your account balance or the original payment card.
Then, the merchant also called tablet computer price 161.99 yuan mark for the operation error, this price is not the real price of the tablet computer. The merchant then paid 161.99 yuan back to zhang.
Zhang to the court, claim compensation for the purchase price 1437 yuan and related rights fees.
The court held that the case of online shopping contract was set up. Because, "check order" page specified in the consumer orders for the offer, website issued a confirmation of delivery constitutes a promise. This is the standard terms, but businesses to fulfill this obligation, and in a significant way to remind consumers to pay attention to.
However, in the process of signing the contract, the merchant has fault. First of all, due to the serious information asymmetry between buyers and sellers, consumers do not know of a commodity inventory, as operators, in the case of shortage of a commodity should timely inform consumers and prevent consumers under the single payment. In the case of businesses still accept consumer orders in cases involving goods can not be delivered, and did not inform consumers of goods price error, its behavior existence fault, should bear the corresponding liability.
In summary, the court decision to cancel the business orders, resulting in Zhang lost at the price of 161.99 yuan to buy a tablet computer trading opportunities, businesses should pay 1 tablet computer to Zhang normal sales price 1599 yuan and 161.99 yuan price difference between the loss and the related rights fee.
Judge: merchants had compensation should be spread
In reality, many businesses in order to improve the paper sales or performance, will bring commodity prices too low, but for various reasons for breach of contract, refused to delivery.
The judge said that our contract law of the contracting fault liability, namely the contract has not been established, invalid cases, the guilty party should bear the responsibility. For the signing of the contract, because the business was not due to the fault of the contract, may require businesses to compensate for the difference, to make up the loss. At the same time, it is because of the fault of businesses, to allow consumers to hire a lawyer or notary, therefore, rights can also require businesses to bear expenses, which is also the embodiment of the fair principle of civil law.
Case: special offer and price as consumers claim support
Xiao Li online shopping 6 bottles of liquor, "special offer" transaction price of 8349 yuan. After the completion of the transaction, Li found that the so-called "special offer" in fact and the price the same, to the price reporting center to report.
Later, Mike and liquor sales company to reach a "memorandum of agreement", complete the return, refund formalities within 5 days after the signing of the agreement the two sides agreed on compensation for 8394 yuan, the company Li, such as the breach, take 20% of the total amount of liquidated damages. After the liquor company did not fulfill the agreement, Li sued the court to require the company to pay 8394 yuan and bear the penalty.
The court held that the liquor company to "special offer" goods to mislead consumers, and the wine and the special offer price equal, his behavior constituted fraud, should bear the legal liability according to law. Xiao Li and, in the process of rights, reached an agreement with the company, but the company failed to fulfill their obligations, their behavior constitutes a breach of contract. Ultimately, the court liquor company Li pay compensation of 8394 yuan, and bear the penalty of 1678.8 yuan.
Judge: consumers more rights
The judge pointed out that transactions between business operators and consumers shall follow the principle of good faith. Business in the sale of products in the process, should provide true information about the goods to consumers, not to make false propaganda. When the emergence of false propaganda to mislead consumers, consumers have the right to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests.
At the same time, the judge also suggested that consumers beyond litigation, can through a variety of channels such as their own rights, and business consultation, help the Consumers Association, the price or the business sector, to solve the problem through multiple pathways, which can release the cost of rights, as soon as possible to reach a compensation agreement to return, replacement, etc..
Source: Beijing daily Gao Jian