The hottest online shopping express is falsely cla

Supreme law: the store should compensate for the counterfeit goods when buying express delivery yesterday (15th), the supreme law reported 10 typical cases of consumers' rights protection with the development concept of modularization, modularization and standardization of star high-tech valve spring fatigue testing machine, which made it clear that the seller should be liable for compensation if the purchased goods were falsely claimed during the express delivery process; The "special price" commodity is the original price after placing an order, and the seller "refunds one and pays three". The sale of the recalled cars by the operators constitutes commercial fraud. Yesterday (15th), the supreme law announced 10 typical cases of consumer rights protection, which made it clear that: the goods purchased were falsely claimed during the express delivery process, and the seller should bear the compensation; The price of special offer goods is the original price after placing an order, and the seller will refund one for three. The sale of the recalled cars by the operators constitutes commercial fraud

□ background introduction

purchase disputes have increased significantly

yesterday, among the 10 typical cases of consumer rights protection notified by the supreme law, 3 cases involved purchase disputes. According to sunjungong, spokesman of the Supreme People's court, online shopping, as an emerging trading method, has played a prominent role in promoting consumption growth. However, due to the large number of fake goods, it has seriously affected quality and safety, and it is difficult to implement after-sales services, so purchase disputes have increased significantly

sun Jungong said that the new consumer law, which came into force on March 15, 2014, also increased the intensity of punitive compensation, changing the refund of one compensation to three in the case of fraud by operators. For the personal injury of consumers caused by the provision of goods or services that are knowingly defective, operators should bear compensation that does not exceed twice the amount of loss; The inversion of proof is stipulated for the defects of durable consumer goods, decoration and other projects; It is also the first time to implement the public interest litigation system in the field of consumer rights protection

□ case 1

the fake seller was responsible for the basic case of buying express delivery: on March 19, 2013, Yang Bo purchased a computer with a value of 15123 yuan from the electronic business department run by Fu Yingchun in the form of purchase, and the payment and mailing fee of 95 yuan have been paid to Yingchun after placing the order. On the same day, Fu Yingchun entrusted Bayannur Hezhong Yuantong Express Co., Ltd. Wulat Front Banner branch (hereinafter referred to as the express company) to deliver goods. The goods arrived at the place of delivery on the 24th of the same month and were falsely claimed by others

for this reason, Yang Bo repeatedly asked Fu Yingchun to deliver the goods unsuccessfully, so he sued the express company and Fu Yingchun to the people's Court of Wulat Front Banner in Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region for the purchase price and mailing expenses

the court ruled that the

store compensated for the purchase price and postage

after hearing the case, the court held that although the seller had delivered the goods to the express company for shipment, during the transportation process, the staff of the express company delivered the goods to others without verifying the identity information of the other party, and the seller had not completed the obligation of goods delivery, which constituted a breach of contract, Therefore, the consumer's claim that the seller should compensate for the paid computer money and mailing fees should be supported. The court ruled that Ying Chun should compensate Yang Bo for 15123 yuan of computer money and 95 yuan of postage

the court held that from the perspective of the respective rights and obligations of the parties, in the purchase contract, Yang Bo had paid the purchase price and postage through the Shanghai Bank, fulfilled the payment obligation of the consumer, and Fu Yingchun, as a seller, had the obligation to deliver to Yang Bo according to the contract

although Fu Yingchun has handed over the goods to the express company for shipment, during the transportation process, the staff of the express company handed over the goods to others without verifying the identity information of the other party. The seller Fu Yingchun has not completed the obligation of goods delivery, which constitutes a breach of contract, so it should pay compensation to consumers

according to the principle of relativity of the contract, the contract only binds the contracting parties. The express company mistakenly handed over the goods to others, which belongs to the transportation relationship between Fu Yingchun and the express company. The express company should not bear compensation in this case, so Yang Bo's request that the express company should bear compensation is not supported

experts interpret that

sellers can sue express companies separately. Zhao Zhanzhan, a rights protection lawyer who participated in the drafting of multiple commodity trading standards, policies, laws and regulations, believes that in the purchase, sending goods to the buyer is the most basic for the seller and the condition for forming a contract in the purchase. In reality, if the seller does not deliver the goods to the buyer, the most basic contract has not been fulfilled. Therefore, when the consumer enters the market, we will set the pointer of the hydraulic universal testing machine to zero. When exercising rights, we will build a new factory producing PPS (polyphenylene sulfide) composites in the Hungarian production base to claim against the seller. Such a claim will inevitably be supported by the court

for the seller, he delivered the goods himself, but did not send the goods to the buyer. If there is evidence that it is the fault of the express company and was falsely claimed, the seller can sue the express company for compensation. Zhao Zhanzhan explained that because in the purchase, the consumer corresponds to the seller, and the goods are also purchased from the seller, there is no sales relationship, that is, a contractual relationship, with the express company. Therefore, for such cases, consumers suing express companies will not be supported by the court because there is no contractual relationship

□ case 2

the e-commerce special price is untrue, and one can be refunded and three can be compensated.

basic case: on April 8, 2014, Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xiaomi company) published an advertisement on its official website, which showed that 10400mah mobile power supply, rice flour Festival special price of 49 yuan. On the same day, Wang Xin ordered two mobile power supplies on the station: 10400mah mobile power supply of 69 yuan and 5200mAh mobile power supply of 39 yuan. After Wang Xin submitted the order, he paid 108 yuan to Xiaomi company through Alipay on the same day

on April 12, Wang Xin received the above two mobile power supplies and supporting data lines. Five days later, Wang Xin found that the original data line with 5200mAh mobile power supply could not be fully charged, so he contacted the customer service of Xiaomi company and asked to replace the data line. Xiaomi agreed to exchange and has received the data line. After that, Wang Xin filed a lawsuit to the court on the grounds of price fraud committed by Xiaomi company

the court ruled that

e-commerce deposit fraud refund and compensation

after hearing, the court held that the purchase contract involved was valid, and consumers had the right to fair trade and the right to know about the goods. Due to the particularity of Xiaomi's online rush purchase sales method, the advertisement is directly linked to the rush purchase interface of goods, and consumers need to make a purchase intention table in a short time, which can be divided into 111 types, 523 types, 622 types and 811 types. Xiaomi recognized that the display of Xiaomi mall's active interface was wrong, and there was a discrepancy between the advertising price and the actual settlement price. Xiaomi explained that there was an error in the computer background system, But there is no evidence to prove it

the court of second instance finally found that Xiaomi company had the intention to cheat consumers, and the court ruled that Wang Xin returned the above two mobile power supplies to Xiaomi company according to law. Xiaomi company compensated Wang Xin 500 yuan at the minimum and returned Wang Xin 108 yuan of the purchase price, and rejected Wang Xin's other claims

the failure of e-commerce system needs to be self-evident

Yang Linping, President of the first people's Court of the Supreme People's court, analyzed that if the seller sold goods with price fraud, inducing consumers to buy the goods, even if the goods are of qualified quality, consumers have the right to request the seller to refund one compensation and three minimum compensation. As a seller, e-commerce commits fraud in the process of using others' networks to sell goods. If it fails to implement the compensation agreement reached with consumers after the transaction, consumers have the right to request the seller to bear compensation in accordance with the agreement

for the special price and promotion of the station, consumers buy the goods at the original price when placing an order. Zhao Zhanzhan said that there are many disputes in such cases in reality. E-commerce usually has two explanations, namely system failure or manual operation error

Zhao Zhanzhan explained that if the merchant does have evidence to prove that the consumer placed an order due to the negligence of the staff or the failure of the system, this is a major misunderstanding. According to the relevant provisions of the contract law, e-commerce needs to return the consumer's shopping money without punitive compensation

if e-commerce has no evidence to prove that the goods purchased by consumers at the original price after special offers and promotions do not belong to a major misunderstanding, then this is the deliberate fraud of e-commerce in publicity. According to the relevant provisions of the consumer protection law, e-commerce sellers should indeed refund one and compensate three

□ case 3

the sale of recalled cars constitutes commercial fraud

basic case: on September 28, 2013, Mr. Wang purchased an outlander small off-road vehicle from Tianjin Zhongjin Peixian Automobile Service Co., Ltd. at the price of 249800 yuan. In February, 2014, Zhongjin company informed Mr. Wang that the car should be recalled. As early as June, 2013, Mitsubishi Motor Corporation has issued an announcement to recall some imported outlander vehicles. The recall time is from June 5, 2013 to June 4, 2014. The scope of vehicles recalled includes vehicles purchased by Mr. Wang

Mr. Wang sued the court on the ground that Zhongjin company constituted commercial fraud, but the court's first instance decision rejected Mr. Wang's claim. Mr. Wang refused and appealed

the court ruled that the seller should pay three times the compensation

the second instance of Tianjin Second Intermediate People's court held that as an operator, Zhongjin company should know whether the vehicle belongs to the scope of recall. Zhongjin company conceals the defective sales of vehicles, which constitutes commercial fraud. As the vehicle sales behavior occurred before the revision of the consumer law, the court made a final judgment that Zhongjin company handled the return of the vehicle for Mr. Wang, and compensated Mr. Wang twice the vehicle price and vehicle purchase tax. According to the revised new "consumer law", if the above behavior occurs, the car dealer will need to compensate the consumer up to three times the purchase price

expert interpretation

Three Guarantees for cars has clearly stipulated

Yang Linping, President of the first civil court of the Supreme People's court, analyzed and believed that the sale of cars that have been publicly recalled constitutes commercial fraud. Consumers have the right to request the return of the purchased car and compensation. In this regard, Zhao Zhanzhan introduced that according to the cases he knew, there were few dealer frauds due to the recall of cars, which was mainly due to the fact that there were clear provisions in the relevant automobile management regulations that the recalled cars should not be resold. Therefore, such cases are individual cases