See also "Wrong price"

　　7,500 yuan sold 204,000 yuan Mercedes-Benz sellers did not ship the court awarded 190,000 yuan

　　The Yuanqi Forest "wrong price" incident is still fermenting, and an online shopping dispute over a second-hand car auction has once again aroused public attention.

　　Recently, some consumers broke the news to the Red Star Capital Bureau that they had bought a second-hand Mercedes-Benz car with the original price of 204,000 yuan on the Taobao auction website for 7,500 yuan.

Then the seller contacted himself, saying that the price was incorrectly marked, and hoped that the consumer would get a refund.

Subsequently, the two parties appealed to the court on the matter.

Recently, the Chengdu Intermediate People's Court made a final judgment on this case, and the seller was sentenced to compensate consumers nearly 200,000 yuan, which has now been enforced.

　　7500 yuan photographed second-hand Mercedes-Benz seller: out of stock, please apply for a refund

　　Recently, Liu Yong (a pseudonym) told the Red Star Capital Bureau that Haoche Kuku Company operated a shop called "Taoche Used Cars" in the "Alibaba Auction-Leakage" section of Taobao platform. On November 14, 2019, he was in In this shop, a second-hand “Mercedes-Benz GLA-class 2016 four-wheel drive 2.0T dual-clutch fashion” was taken at the price of 7,500 yuan.

　　Liu Yong said that the shop page at that time showed that the vehicle was a "Buy it Now" spike, and the price was 4000-7500 yuan.

Liu Yong took the price of 7,500 yuan and completed the payment process.

　　But soon after the photo was taken, the customer service of the store contacted him, saying that "this car is not on sale" and "it is no longer in stock" and hoped that Liu Yong would refund it.

　　Liu Yong refused to refund and urged the shipment several times in the following days.

　　On November 19, 2019, Haoche Kuku Company informed Liu Yong that the Mercedes-Benz it photographed was marked with the wrong price due to the background system, and the source of the car has been sold and cannot be traded normally. Liu Yong once again applied for a refund , And indicated that a compensation of 100 yuan can be given.

　　Liu Yong refused to accept the above solution, and the two parties could not reach an agreement.

　　On December 23, 2019, both parties filed a lawsuit to resolve the compensation plan.

　　Court decision:

　　The seller was sentenced to nearly 200,000 yuan in compensation

　　In the trial of the first instance, Haochekuku said that the company has two trading modes (the price of the whole car and the reservation fee). Since Liu Yong purchased during the "Double Eleven" period, it can only be in the form of advance payment. The price is only for demonstration purposes. The company mistakenly marked the reservation fee as the price of the whole vehicle, and the actual 7,500 yuan is an advance payment."

　　Then, in the second trial, Haochekuku said that the Taobao system was faulty, which caused the price of the whole car to be marked incorrectly, and that the car was already sold and could not be delivered.

　　The Red Star Capital Bureau inquired on the second-hand car platform and learned that the current official guidance price of the new Mercedes-Benz GLA is 276,800-332,800, while the transaction price of the 2016 second-hand Mercedes-Benz GLA ranges from 160,000 to 220,000.

　　In the first instance, the Wuhou District People’s Court of Chengdu pointed out that the sale and purchase contract between Liu Yong and Haochekuku Company represented the true intentions of both parties. The content did not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations and was legal and effective. They should perform their obligations strictly in accordance with the law.

In the end, the first-instance ruling Haochekuku Second-hand Car Broker (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. paid Liu Yong 196,500 yuan, and the case acceptance fee of 4,300 yuan was borne by the defendant Haochekuku.

　　In the second instance, the Chengdu Intermediate People's Court upheld the original judgment.

　　The two major controversies of the case

　　Dispute 1:

　　Is the online shopping contract established?

　　The court of first instance held that Haochekuku Company will auction the detailed information of the goods involved in the case, such as the brand, model, appearance, mileage, uniquely identifiable frame number, payment method, and delivery method of the second-hand car involved in the case. The "Buy it Now" method is displayed on the website, and the main terms of the draft contract are already in place.

　　Haoche Kuku Company argued that the price of the whole car was only for display purposes, but it was inconsistent with Liu Yong's ordering and payment transactions through procedures set up on the website.

The act of publishing clear and specific merchandise sales information on the website of Haochekuku Company and making public the main content of the contract is an offer. Liu Yong's ordering and payment behaviors have fulfilled his promise to Hachekuku Company's offer.

　　Dispute 2:

　　How to determine the amount of loss?

　　The court held that Haoche Cool Cool Company should perform its obligation to deliver the vehicle as agreed, but it still failed to perform after Liu Yong's repeated appeals, and it was also clear that the vehicle involved in the case could not be delivered.

Therefore, Liu Yong has the right to exercise the statutory right of rescission and ask Hachekuku Company to compensate for the losses.

　　Based on the fact that Haoche Cool Cool Company clearly informed the other party that the vehicle price of the vehicle is actually 204,000 yuan in the communication record, and it has clearly marked the vehicle price on the page as the naked car price, excluding taxes, transfer fees and other related fees , The court of first instance supported Liu Yong’s claim for a loss of 200,000 yuan within the range of 196,500 yuan.

　　The basis for the specific compensation is that Haoche Kuku Company admitted that the actual value of the vehicle was 204,000 yuan, and Liu Yong did not claim to return the payment that has been paid, so Haoche Kuku Company should bear the loss of 196,500 yuan to Liu Yong. (204,000 yuan-7500 yuan).

　　News extension

　　The involved company’s main second-hand car business has been involved in multiple vehicle sales contract disputes

　　On October 29, the Red Star Capital Bureau contacted Chekuku Company for further inquiries regarding the circumstances of the above-mentioned case. The relevant person in charge of the company stated that opinions on the case shall be subject to the public judgment.

　　Tianyancha shows that Haoche Cool Cool Used Car Broker (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. was established in 2018. It is an automobile trading platform that provides online automobile transactions and financial product services including new car loans, online second-hand car purchase, quotation inquiry, Car services such as vehicle evaluation and auto loan and auto insurance.

On May 16, 2019, "Taoche Used Cars" officially entered Taobao stores, focusing on the "national purchase" business connecting national car sources with individual users.

　　Haoche Cool Cool Used Car Brokerage (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. is 100% controlled by Yusheng Holdings Hong Kong Limited, and the legal representative is Wang Jianwei.

Wang Jianwei is also the major shareholder and actual controller of Beijing Taoche Technology Co., Ltd.

　　According to the Red Star Capital Bureau, this is not the first time that Haoche Kuku Second-hand Car Brokerage (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. has a contract sales dispute with consumers.

According to the statistics of Tianyancha, up to now, the company has 16 disputes over sales contracts and 9 disputes over service contracts.

　　Lawyer's point of view

　　Consumers purchase according to the procedure, and the sales contract is valid

　　On October 26, the Red Star Capital Bureau reported that the original price of 79 yuan a box (12 bottles) of sparkling water was priced at 3.5 yuan, which attracted 140.5 million users to place orders and generated value Ten million yuan in orders.

In this regard, Hu Gang, deputy secretary general of the Legal Work Committee of the Internet Society of China and lawyer of the China Consumers Association, said that according to regulations, as long as consumers confirm the price and pay the price, then the contract has been established.

　　Regarding the 7,500 yuan purchase of a Mercedes-Benz car, Yin Guoyong of the Sichuan Hetai Law Firm stated in an interview with the Red Star Capital Bureau that whether it is a merchant’s price setting error or the “establishment of a bureau” to solicit traffic, from a legal perspective, such cases The core dispute is whether this contract is established and effective.

　　Yin Guoyong said that in this case, Liu Yong had completed ordering, payment and other transactions through the procedures set up on the website, and that the sale contract involved in the case should be considered legal and valid.

However, Haochekuku Company stated that the vehicles photographed by consumers have been sold, and the delivery of the vehicles cannot be completed.

For the above situation, consumers can request compensation processing.

If the merchant believes that the contract is obviously unfair or has a major misunderstanding, the contract must be cancelled.

According to the provisions of the Civil Code, one party may request the court or arbitration institution to cancel a contract concluded due to a major misunderstanding.

But merchants cannot cancel orders at will, or ask consumers for refunds, but have to go to court to sue.

Whether the contract can be revoked is determined by the court.

　　Chengdu Commercial Daily-Red Star News reporter Yu Yao, intern reporter Shen Mengyun