Patted 31 cases of wine received 31 bottles of “wool pulling” whether malicious how to identify?
Letter net dispatch on March 28 (reporter Wang Qi) nowadays, buy online with its save time save effort the advantage that compares price quickly gets the favour of broad consumer, Yang Xiansheng of Qingdao citizen thinks oneself collect wool originally, did not think of businessman to deliver goods without the quantity that thinks according to oneself however, 31 cases of white wine became 31 bottles.After the negotiation failed, Mr. Yang filed a lawsuit. The first-instance judgment supported Mr. Yang’s lawsuit request. After the merchants filed an appeal, Qingdao Intermediate People’s Court revised the judgment after the second instance.Is the seller intentionally play to depend on, or really operate error?”Wool pulling” have no malicious how to identify?The second trial judge said…Find any difference in quantity of first instance verdict platform losing in mid-may 2019 Qingdao citizens Yang found when a platform online, some brand spirit erguotou at a lower price than the price of daily dozens of yuan a bottle of wine at ordinary times can now buy a box, think oneself just in time to catch the platform to Mr Yang in the space of an hour,He placed several orders for a total of 31 cases of both types of baijiu, but when he received the goods, he found that the 31 cases he had ordered had turned into 31 bottles.Mr. Yang thought the quantity was wrong and rejected the goods, and immediately contacted customer service.However, the customer service said that Mr. Yang did not buy the whole box of baijiu but a single bottle of baijiu, the platform delivered the correct quantity.When the two parties failed to coordinate, Mr. Yang filed a lawsuit against the platform, requiring the platform to deliver the goods by the case. The platform filed a countersuit, demanding the cancellation of the sales contract between the two parties.After the trial, the first-instance court held that the sales contract between the two parties was established. The defendant claimed that the contract was obviously unfair and demanded to cancel the sales contract, but selectively continued to perform the contract without immediately requesting the cancellation of the sales contract between the two parties or immediately changing the sales information of related products on its sales platform.Therefore, the court of first instance supported the plaintiff’s claim and rejected the defendant’s counterclaim.After the first-instance verdict, the platform appealed against the verdict, and the case was appealed to Qingdao Intermediate People’s Court.Second trial: how to understand the ordering page?In the second trial, the two sides around how to understand the order, launched a fierce debate.A screenshot of The order Yang submitted to the court shows that a search on the platform listed the price of the liquor in question, 40 yuan for a 500ml bottle and 20 yuan for a 150ml bottle.Enter the order page, the product information has changed: 500ml liquor will be displayed multiplied by (*)12,150ml liquor will be displayed multiplied by (*)24.Mr. Yang believed that the multiplier on the order page was exactly the number of baijiu per case, so he asked the platform to deliver the next large order of 31 cases, not 31 bottles.In this regard, the appeal party explained that: in the name of the goods indicated a FCL comment, so that consumers can buy FCL, according to the corresponding quantity of the order, convenient for consumers who have a large number of procurement needs.Then, Mr. Yang put forward the second detail to prove his point, “The weight will be marked on the order details page. Take the transaction in the screenshot as an example, the page shows 150ml*24 marked with 8kg * 9 in the lower right corner.”Mr. Yang believes this number indicates the weight of the order, which is one reason Mr. Yang believes he bought a full case of baijiu.As for the labeling of weight, the appellant said that it was due to the background setting of the platform and there was a bug.In the trial, Mr. Yang also said that the platform is so marked to attract customers, is now looking for reasons to evade.”I think when I bought these wines, the platform was in the midst of a promotion campaign, and the platform’s company had been beating other retailers through price wars.”The appellate party does not agree, the appellate party thinks, these two kinds of liquor has never carried on the low price promotion, the platform submitted the purchase list as the evidence, and said that even if carried on the promotion, it is impossible to sell at the price of 20 yuan a box.”The price Yang thought was as low as 0.83 yuan per bottle of 150ml wine and 3.3 yuan per bottle of 500ml wine, which is too big a difference from the purchase price.”At the same time, the appellant put forward that if the contract continues to perform obviously unfair, Mr. Yang paid 900 yuan, required the appellant to deliver 14,880 yuan of liquor goods, obviously not fair transaction, the contract conforms to the situation of revocable.In the end, the court ruled in the second instance that Mr. Yang’s request to continue to perform the contract was rejected and the sales contract between the two parties was cancelled. The platform returned the payment of 900 yuan to Mr. Yang and paid him 2,500 yuan for the loss.Dialogue with presiding Judge:Unfair to error correction, losses caused should be accountable and the case of similar incidents have occurred recently, on October 26, 2021, taobao “from forest official shop” for the clerk preferential set wrong, the original price 79 yuan a box (12 bottles) of bubble water into 3 cases of 10 yuan, the wrong prices lead to many consumers “uproot wool,” the 300000 single bubble water sales.A few days later, the store issued an announcement asking consumers to help it by applying for a refund in the background.Should consumers be allowed to “pull their wool” like this?Sell a home intentionally for it or operation error how to affirm?For this, the reporter interviewed bian Dongdong, the presiding judge of the case.Bian said an important criterion for judging the case is whether the merchants deliberately attract consumers’ attention in this way.”On the part of the merchant, this could be due to a pricing error or system error, or it could be due to promotion or malicious brushing.”The court reviewed this order, but the order could not reflect the merchants’ promotional behavior. According to the platform information, the possibility of malicious brushing by the merchants was also excluded.Bian also held that the price Yang claimed to have paid for the liquor was too different from the actual price, which was almost the same as the price of a bottle of mineral water.”In addition, we also believe that the amount of Orders Placed by Mr. Yang is also unreasonable.Continuous order in a short period of time, two kinds of specifications of the liquor is a kind of bought 17 cases, a purchased 14 cases, although Mr Yang said they buy these is for the old man to drink wine, but we know before Mr Yang, although there is a survey to buy liquor to send the old man’s record, but the quantity is a few bottles of each time, and not the brand of wine.”Bian said that in this case, according to the standard of ordinary reasonable person, the consumer had some judgment on the price of the goods.An honest and friendly consumer should not place an order maliciously because of operator’s wrong identification, in order to obtain improper interests.”Consumers should also behave in accordance with basic civic values.The law does not support malicious purchase of malicious claims.If tens of thousands of users place orders at the same time, the cost to the merchant could be in the millions, so we have to take into account the social impact.”For these reasons, Bian thought the platform could be allowed to correct errors.”Specifically in this case, the sales platform mislabeled, resulting in price differences of 12 times and 24 times respectively, which is enough to determine that the interests are extremely unequal and the contract is obviously unfair, so it should be cancelled.One of the functions of the judiciary is to restore the balance of the unbalanced legal relations, and the system of gross misunderstanding and obvious unfairness is an important remedy.””Comprehensive relevant evidence and the arguments on both sides, however, we believe that flat island’s identification error led to the occurrence of the case, and there is evidence that flat island’s not take measures to rectify in the wake of a dispute, in order to avoid mislead consumers, there is an obvious mistake, so the decision to Mr Yang ping island’s compensation of 2500 yuan of economic losses.”Judge Bian stressed that good faith and friendship are not only basic civic values, but also important legal principles of civil law.This requires all market participants to pursue their own interests without harming the interests of others and social welfare.”In order to maintain transaction security, e-commerce operators have the obligation to truthfully and accurately disclose commodity information,” Bian said. “Consumers rely on the information and submit orders through the Internet to establish a transaction relationship.However, in cases where the interests of consumers and business owners are extremely unequal, major misunderstanding and apparent unfairness are important remedies if low price promotion and mispricing are excluded.”An honest and friendly consumer should not place orders maliciously because of operator’s wrong identification;An honest and prudent operator should also innovate technology, regulate its behavior and avoid price mistakes. After all, the confidence and trust of consumers in online shopping is the basis for the survival of the market.Both operators and consumers are the objects of equal protection under the law, and they should follow the principle of good faith and practice core socialist values.