From the case released by the Supreme Court to learn online shopping rights protection： online shopping is falsely claimed by the seller
The Supreme Court held a press conference not long ago to inform the court of the relevant situation of safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of consumers in accordance with the law, and announced 10 typical cases of consumer rights protection, 3 of which were about online shopping. At a time when online shopping is increasingly developed and online shopping disputes are also increasing, it is of great benefit to consumers to understand the Supreme Court’s judgments on typical cases of online shopping and rights protection.
Wang Xin v. Xiaomi
[Case]
On April 8, 2014, the advertisement published by Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xiaomi) on its official website showed: 10400mAh mobile power supply, special price of 49 yuan for "Rice Noodles Festival". On the same day, Wang Xin ordered the following two mobile power supplies on the website: Xiaomi Metal Mobile Power 10400mAh silver 69 yuan, Xiaomi Mobile Power 5200mAh silver 39 yuan. After Wang Xin submitted the order, he paid 108 yuan to Xiaomi Company through Alipay on the same day. On the 12th of the same month, Wang Xin received the above two mobile power supplies. Afterwards, Wang Xin sued the People’s Court of Haidian District, Beijing on the grounds that Xiaomi had committed price fraud, requesting the cancellation of the online shopping contract. Wang Xin returned two sets of mobile power supplies involved in the case to Xiaomi, and requested Xiaomi to: 1. Compensation for Wang Xin 500 yuan; 2. Refund of Wang Xin’s purchase price of 108 yuan; 3. Pay Wang Xin’s courier fee of 15 yuan; 4. Compensation for Wang Xin’s transportation, printing, and copying fees of 100 yuan.
[Judgment]
The court of first instance held that the online shopping contract involved in the case was valid, that Xiaomi’s actions did not constitute fraud, and that Wang Xin’s claim was insufficiently substantiated, so the judgment rejected his claim.
Wang Xin refused to accept it and appealed to the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court, claiming that Xiaomi had advertised the original price of 69 yuan for the power supply "Rice Noodle Festival" to sell for 49 yuan a week in advance, deceiving consumers to queue up to buy. The advertisement was still there on the day of sale, but the goods were sold for 69 yuan, which constituted price fraud. The 2nd-round Moderation Court held that Wang Xin’s intention to snap up on the day of the "Rice Noodle Festival" because he agreed with Xiaomi’s advertising price of 49 yuan should be 49 yuan. However, from the order details on Xiaomi’s website, it can be seen that Wang Xin placed an order at 14:30 on April 8, 2014, and the price of the 10400mAh mobile power supply in the order was 69 yuan instead of 49 yuan. Xiaomi now acknowledges that there is an error in the display of the activity interface of Xiaomi Mall, and there is an inconsistency between the advertised price and the actual settlement price, but it interprets it as an error in the computer background system. Since Xiaomi did not make a statement to consumers on the Internet about the error in its background after the fact, and it has no evidence to prove that the computer background failed on the day of the "Rice Noodles Festival", the 2nd-round Moderation court found that Xiaomi had the intention to defraud consumers, and Wang Xin’s request for cancellation of the contract was reasonable due to the fraud of the 10400mAh mobile power supply. For the other power supply, both parties agreed to terminate the contract, and the 2nd-round Moderation court granted it. Therefore, the court ruled that Wang Xin should return the above two mobile power supplies to Xiaomi Company according to law, and Xiaomi Company should compensate Wang Xin 500 yuan, refund Wang Xin 108 yuan for the goods, and reject Wang Xin’s other claims.
[Comment]
If the seller sells goods online with price fraud and induces consumers to buy the goods, even if the quality of the goods is qualified, the consumer has the right to request the seller to "refund one to three" and guarantee compensation.
Li Xiaodong v. Jiuxian.com
[Case]
On August 9, 2012, Li Xiaodong bought 6 bottles of Baijiu sold by Jiuxian.com e-commerce joint stock company (hereinafter referred to as Jiuxian.com) on Taobao. The online product page described it as [Baijiu China Famous Brand 52 Degrees Wuliangye (1618) 500ml Special Price], and the transaction price was 8349 yuan. After the transaction was completed, Li Xiaodong checked the above webpage and found that the Baijiu purchased in Jiuxian.com’s Taobao store won the bidding of the product "special price and original price" equal, so he reported it to the Beijing Price Reporting Center. Afterwards, Li Xiaodong and Jiuxian Company reached a "Understanding Agreement", agreeing that the two parties would complete the return and refund procedures within 5 days after the signing of the agreement. Jiuxian Company compensated Li Xiaodong 8,394 yuan, and if one party breached the contract, it would bear 20% of the total amount of liquidated damages. Because Jiuxian Company failed to fulfill the agreement, Li Xiaodong sued to the People’s Court of Binhai County, Jiangsu Province, requesting Jiuxian Company to compensate 8,394 yuan and bear liquidated damages of 1678.8 yuan.
[Judgment]
The court under suit held that business operators should follow the principles of voluntary, equal, fair, and good faith when conducting transactions with consumers. In the course of transactions, business operators should provide consumers with true information about the goods and must not make false propaganda. In the course of online transactions in this case, Jiuxian Company misled consumers by selling special goods online. Its behavior constituted fraud and should bear legal responsibility according to law. Li Xiaodong reached an understanding agreement with Jiuxian Company in the process of claiming compensation. Because Jiuxian Company failed to perform its obligations in accordance with the agreement, its behavior constituted a breach of contract and should bear the liability for breach of contract. Therefore, Li Xiaodong’s lawsuit request for Jiuxian Company to perform its compensation obligations in accordance with the agreement complies with the law and should be supported according to law. The court ordered Jiuxian Company to pay Li Xiaodong 8,394 yuan in compensation and 1678.8 yuan in liquidated damages, totaling 10,072.8 yuan. Jiuxian Company did not appeal.
[Comment]
As a seller, there is fraud in the process of using other people’s networks to sell goods. If the seller reaches a compensation agreement with the consumer after the transaction and fails to fulfill it, the consumer has the right to request the seller to bear compensation liability in accordance with the agreement.
Yang Bo v. Express Company
[Case]
On March 19, 2013, Yang Bo purchased a computer worth 15,123 yuan from Fu Yingchun’s electronic business department in the form of online shopping. After placing the order, the payment and postage of 95 yuan have been paid to Yingchun. On the same day, Fu Yingchun entrusted Wulateqianqi Branch of Bayannaoer Hezhong Yuantong Express Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the courier company) to deliver the goods. The goods arrived at the delivery place on the 24th of the same month and were falsely claimed by others. To this end, Yang Bo repeatedly asked Fu Yingchun to deliver the goods unsuccessfully, and then sued the People’s Court of Wulateqianqi, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, requesting that the courier company and Fu Yingchun compensate 15,123 yuan for the computer payment and 95 yuan for the postage.
[Judgment]
The court held that Yang Bo purchased goods from Fu Yingchun in the form of online shopping, and paid the payment and postage to Fu Yingchun. Fu Yingchun, as the shipper, entrusted the courier company to deliver the goods to Yang Bo, forming the online shopping contract relationship and the transportation contract relationship respectively. From the perspective of the respective rights and obligations of the parties, in the online shopping contract, Yang Bo has paid the payment and postage through online banking, fulfilled the consumer’s payment obligation, and Fu Yingchun, as the seller, has the obligation to deliver the goods to Yang Bo according to the contract. Although Fu Yingchun has handed over the goods to the courier company for shipment, during the transportation process, the courier company’s staff handed over the goods to others for receipt without verifying the identity information of the other party during delivery. The seller Fu Yingchun has not completed the delivery obligation of the goods, which constitutes a breach of contract. Therefore, Yang Bo’s request for Fu Yingchun to compensate 15,123 yuan for the paid computer payment and 95 yuan for the postage should be supported. According to the principle of relativity of the contract, the contract only binds the parties to the contract. The courier company mistakenly handed over the goods to others, which belongs to the transportation relationship between Fu Yingchun and the courier company. The courier company should not be liable for compensation in this case, so Yang Bo’s request that the courier company should be liable for compensation is not supported. The court ordered Yingchun to compensate Yang Bo 15,123 yuan for the computer payment and 95 yuan for the postage. None of the parties appealed.
[Comment]
If the consumer claims that the seller and the deliveryman share the liability for compensation for the goods purchased online by others during the delivery process, the seller shall be liable for compensation according to the principle of relativity of the contract.