China News Service, Beijing, August 17 (Reporter Wang Qingkai and Zhang Heyuan) As of the press release of China News Service, Tesla and Pinduoduo have been fighting each other for five rounds around the Tesla Model 3 "rejection" incident.
Legal professionals generally believe that Pinduoduo and the consumers involved do not have "resale" behavior, and the relevant contract terms on which Tesla refuses to deliver are the "Overlord Clauses."
In the eyes of most consumers, the "Tesla China Model 3" 10,000-person group purchase campaign launched by Pinduoduo Shangyibu flagship store did not bring profit loss to Tesla, so why refuse to deliver it? Is the reason for its refusal to be delivered legally, and what is the business logic? What calculation did Tesla make?
Five rounds of "tongue war"
On July 20, Pinduoduo platform Yimaiche Automobile Flagship Store launched the "Tesla China Model 3" 10,000-person group purchase event, with a group price of 251800 yuan. The starting price of the car on Tesla's official website is 291800 yuan. In other words, if consumers are successful, a Tesla can save 40,000 yuan.
But after Tesla knew about it, he was unhappy. The statement on July 21 stated that it did not cooperate with Yimaicar or Pinduoduo, nor did it entrust the other party to sell vehicles, nor did it sell cars to the other party for this event. "If consumers have any disputes or damages to their rights due to the above group buying activities, our company will not bear any responsibility."
do as promised. On August 14, Tesla rejected a Wuhan car owner who had successfully joined the group in Pinduoduo. Tesla said that these consumers were suspected of violating Tesla's "No Resale" clause. Tesla will unilaterally cancel this order in accordance with the contract breach clause.
On the same day, Pinduoduo responded that the consumer himself had signed a subscription agreement with Tesla, and the consumer himself did not intend to resell it. As for Tesla’s refusal to perform the contract with consumers, as a “subsidy” party, it will support consumers in protecting their rights in accordance with the law and will actively implement vehicle delivery.
After a few rounds, Tesla’s “rejection” became a hot spot of public opinion. Many legal professionals, including experts from the Expert Committee of the China Consumers Association, and Qiu Baochang, president of the Beijing Law Society’s E-commerce Rule of Law Research Association, generally believe that Tesla’s unilateral refusal to deliver is a breach of contract.
But Tesla did not show weakness. On the 17th, Tesla responded that if the owner places an order through official channels, Tesla will provide certain remedial measures; if the owner decides to sue Pinduoduo, it will provide legal assistance.
Tesla involved in "Overlord Clause"
Comprehensive multi-party sources show that consumers place orders on Tesla’s official website and purchase contracts are signed between consumers and Tesla. Pinduoduo and dealer Yibuy only provide subsidies to consumers during the payment process.
An insider close to the car owner told Chinanews.com that the car owner was a courier before, and the money for buying a car was “savings by expressing a single order.” He did not expect to communicate with Tesla because he told the truth. The other party was "Pinduoduo" who paid the balance on his behalf, and was involved in a "rejection of delivery" storm.
But it is worth noting that a Shanghai car owner who bought Model 3 in Pinduoduo Group has already successfully picked up the car.
In this transaction, whether Pinduoduo and the car owner form a resale relationship becomes the key. Qiu Baochang analyzed that consumers place orders on Tesla’s official website. The relationship between Pinduoduo and consumers is not a sales relationship with Tesla. Both parties are entrusted to pay for the price. Pinduoduo is entrusted by consumers to pay for the car. . This cannot be regarded as reselling.
Pinduoduo provided subsidies to consumers only in the payment link throughout the incident. This kind of subsidy more has the meaning of "gift" in the legal sense.
In layman's terms, this is not much different from buying a car with a loan. In the sales model of buying a car with a loan, consumers first pay a deposit to the car manufacturer, and then apply for car credit, with the bank paying the balance. A loan transaction is formed between the consumer and the bank, and the consumer will repay the bank in the future. This kind of help to pay can be banks, auto finance companies, leasing finance companies, or "gifts" from relatives and friends. This is actually similar to the Pinduoduo subsidy in this case.
Regarding the "refusal of delivery", Tesla explained that the "Model 3 Car Order Agreement" clearly stipulates that "Tesla sells cars directly to end customers. For any orders that our company believes is for resale or other non-good faith purposes Our company has the right to unilaterally terminate this agreement".
"This clause is legally invalid." According to Lawyer Tian Siyuan, deputy director of the Civil Affairs Research Committee of the Shanghai Lawyers Association, Article 40 of the Contract Law stipulates that the party providing the standard clause shall exempt its liability, increase the liability of the other party, and exclude If the other party has the main rights, this clause is invalid.
In addition, Article 49 of the "E-Commerce Law" also clearly stipulates that e-commerce operators must not use standard clauses and other methods to stipulate that the contract is not established after the consumer pays the price; if the standard clauses contain such content, the content is invalid.
Tian Siyuan believes that, on the one hand, consumers will naturally obtain ownership after buying a car, and whether they want to use it or resell it is his right; on the other hand, the "Model 3 Car Order Agreement" is a pre-planned by Tesla for repeated use and has not "Standard terms" for negotiation with consumers.
The two conditions are combined, the so-called "no resale clause" will be invalid due to legal provisions, and Tesla naturally cannot refuse to deliver cars on this ground.
However, Xiong Bingwan, an associate professor at the School of Law of Renmin University of China, told a reporter from Chinanews.com that as a well-known car company, Tesla will consider a series of issues such as its own corporate brand, sales, and after-sales service. How an enterprise sells should belong to the scope of its independent decision-making. As long as the sales strategy adopted by the enterprise does not violate the "Anti-Monopoly Law" and does not involve the issue of the "Competition Law", the independent decision-making of the enterprise should be respected in principle.
Who moved Tesla's cheese?
In the eyes of most consumers, this transaction was originally a "three-win" transaction: consumers received benefits, Tesla increased car sales, and Pinduoduo promoted the brand. But why is Tesla strongly opposed to this transaction? What kind of business logic is behind it?
Wu Jingming, an associate professor of economic law at China University of Political Science and Law, told a reporter from Chinanews.com that Tesla may be skeptical of the reputation of Pinduoduo. The main thing is that Tesla does not worry about selling, not a slow-moving product, and it can be sold without Pinduoduo platforms. "Pinduoduo's subsidy to consumers is a commercial advertising behavior, which is not acceptable to Tesla."
Tesla has always adopted a direct sales model in the Chinese market. The group buying activities launched by Pinduoduo are tricky, and to some extent it is easy to cause consumers to misunderstand Tesla's price system.
Financial commentator Jiang Han believes that as a large-value consumer durable goods, cars are actually priced based on supply and demand, market competition, market influence factors, and consumer acceptance.
The price of automobile products often needs to be calculated carefully. At this time, if a platform or distributor jumps out to say that they are willing to sell at a lower price, the first reaction for Tesla is to maintain its dignity and price system, and such a distribution system will be carried out. Countermeasure. But Tesla directly cancelled consumer orders, which is too arrogant.
To put it bluntly, Tesla just can't understand the subsidy model adopted by Pinduoduo, which has affected its right to speak in the market.
How should consumers defend their rights in Tesla’s “rejection”? Qiu Baochang said that consumers can negotiate with Tesla to resolve the matter, or lodge a complaint with consumer protection organizations, market supervision and management departments, and lodge a lawsuit in court.
Tesla declined to comment on the interview with a reporter from Chinanews.com. (Finish)