Zhongxin Finance, April 19th (Zuo Yuqing) 1 yuan for 2 cups of coffee, is it intentional marketing by the merchant, or is the price configuration wrong in the background?
On the 18th, Ruixing Coffee encountered a large number of orders due to the abnormal order price on the Ele.me platform, and therefore suspended its online business. Subsequently, "Luckin Coffee's apology letter" and "Is it reasonable for Ruixing to cancel the bug order" rushed to Weibo. Hot search, causing controversy among netizens.
Ruixing apologized twice for price setting mistakes
On the morning of the 18th, many netizens found that the price of several packages of Ruixing on the Ele.me platform was abnormal. After the preferential price was superimposed on the red envelopes of Ele.me members, the price of a package (two cups of coffee) was the lowest or even only 0.01 yuan.
"We have a store here, and we got 500 orders in half an hour, and she shouted for help in the group." In this regard, a Ruixing employee said in the Weibo comment area.
On the morning of the same day, Ruixing Coffee’s official Weibo issued an apology letter, saying that due to the price configuration problem in the backstage of Ele.me, the price of Ruixing’s coconut cloud package was wrong in a short time, and the store was squeezed by a large number of abnormal orders.
On the morning of the 18th, Ruixing Coffee’s official Weibo apologized twice for the abnormal order.
Ruixing Coffee said: "For normal operation, we have urgently cancelled abnormal orders on the Ele.me platform, and the Ele.me store is temporarily closed. We will consider compensation for users and notify us separately."
Soon, Ruixing Coffee apologized again and said: "After verification, this is caused by the misconfiguration of Ruixing's internal operating staff. It's causing trouble to Ele.me and everyone, and we are already dealing with follow-up issues."
Some netizens said that all the orders they placed during the period when the package price was abnormal have been delivered; some netizens said that although they placed an order for the problematic package, the store did not deliver them since then and cancelled the order.
The views of netizens are polarized: default or "scratch wool"?
"Whether you are a real bug or a real marketing. But we are the users who really placed the order!" Some netizens did not buy it when Ruixing closed its online business and apologized.
Some netizens believe that the so-called "price allocation error" is just Ruixing's marketing method. Ruixing's cancellation of the order is a breach of contract, and Ruixing is required to compensate.
"Don't play if you can't afford it." "Why should consumers pay for your own mistakes?"
However, some netizens expressed their incomprehension: "I know that there is a problem with other people, but I can still work hard. Is there any problem with stopping the loss and refunding the money? What is received is the profit, and what is the loss if not received?"
Netizen comments under Ruixing's official Weibo.
In fact, there have been many merchants who have placed a large number of orders in a short period of time due to the wrong price setting in the background, and the online orderers are called "wool party".
Zhongxin Finance noticed that on the morning of the 18th, many people posted news on a certain social platform, encouraging netizens to go to Ruixing to "sweep the wool".
In October 2021, the official Taobao store of Yuanqi Forest set the wrong price when pushing the promotion. The original price of a box (12 bottles) of sparkling water was 79 yuan, and the average price per box was only about 3.5 yuan after placing an order.
Since then, Yuanqi Forest issued an announcement saying that during the period when the operators set the wrong price, a total of 140,500 users placed orders, generating orders worth tens of millions of yuan.
Among them, there were 451 orders for the purchase of more than 50 boxes, and the largest order was 41,000 boxes.
The price of goods is not even as high as the cost of express delivery.
Lawyer: Ruixing does not constitute a breach of contract
So, is Ruixing suspected of breach of contract?
Does Luckin have the right to cancel abnormal orders?
An Xiang, director of Beijing Dexiang Law Firm, believes that discussing whether Ruixing is suspected of breach of contract first depends on whether the contract between Ruixing and consumers is established.
"The discount of Ruixing's problem order is less than 10%, which is far from the original price. According to common sense in life, it can be judged that there is a price setting error." An Xiang said that the premise of the establishment of the purchase contract is the merchant and the consumer. There was a consensus, and Ruixing's obvious price tag did not reflect the true meaning of the merchant.
Therefore, it is difficult to support the so-called "wool" behavior of consumers in law: "Although there are many consumers placing orders, because of major misunderstandings, the contract is legally revocable."
Data map: A Ruixing coffee store.
Photo by Yin Liqin
According to Article 54 of the "Contract Law", a party to a contract concluded due to a major misunderstanding has the right to request the people's court or an arbitration institution to modify or revoke it.
This also means that if the "low-priced coffee" is caused by a price setting error, then Ruixing's cancellation of the problem order does not constitute a breach of contract.
At the same time, An Xiang said that
if there is evidence that Ruixing has malicious marketing, it is suspected of fraud
.
According to Article 55 of the "Consumer Rights Protection Law", consumers can request "one refund and three compensations; if the amount of increased compensation is less than 500 yuan, the compensation shall be 500 yuan.
Previously, some judges also told the media that if a merchant did not intentionally set up promotional information but mislabeled it, this is very different from ordinary promotions.
"If the contract is cancelled due to the wrong price or quantity marked by the store, the store may be identified as the party at fault and needs to compensate the buyer for the actual loss. If the buyer places an order and concludes a contract knowing that the contract cannot be actually performed, it will be The expected profit from fulfillment is actually zero, and when the cost of online shopping is almost zero, it may be determined by the court or arbitration institution that there is no actual loss.” (End)