Does the wrongly labeled ultra-low price Porsche have to be delivered after placing an order? Expert Interpretation

　　Does the wrongly marked ultra-low price Porsche have to deliver after placing an order?

　　Experts Interpret the Solution to "Oolong" Order Disputes

　　□ Reporter Chen Lei Sun Tianjiao

　　On January 30, a car was launched at the Porsche Center in Yinchuan City, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, with a price tag of 124,000 yuan, triggering a large number of orders from consumers.

As of that evening, the sales link had a total of nearly 600 pre-orders.

Subsequently, Porsche took the car off the shelf and refunded the consumer deposit.

　　The next day, the sales side of the Porsche Center in Yinchuan stated that the actual inventory of the Porsche mini-program is 1 vehicle. After the first order is successfully purchased, the subsequent order will be automatically judged as an invalid order, and the deposit will be refunded within 48 hours.

　　On February 1, there were media reports that the staff of the Porsche Center in Yinchuan said that the car was not sold to the first person who placed the order, but called to get an understanding like other customers.

　　This matter aroused heated discussions in the society.

Many netizens commented that according to the principle of good faith, since the merchant has provided a link and the customer has placed an order, it should be delivered.

　　According to the public information, the reporter of "Rule of Law Daily" found that in recent years, online platform sellers have mislabeled commodity prices (especially "oolong" orders whose prices are far lower than the actual value) have occurred from time to time, which has caused many disputes.

　　For example, in December 2020, a well-known multinational company’s Chinese official website store had an incident of mislabeling prices. A product worth 1,000 yuan was priced at 100 or 200 yuan.

　　In January 2021, the system technicians of a well-known jeweler made an operation error and set the price of the goods sold through an e-commerce platform to a price far lower than the normal selling price, but the merchant sued after the consumer purchased it.

　　Liu Junhai, director of the Institute of Commercial Law at Renmin University of China, analyzed in an interview with reporters that the phenomenon of merchants mislabeling commodity prices can be divided into two types of situations: one is due to staff or marketing system technical failures causing mislabelled commodity prices; One category is intentional by merchants.

　　In Liu Junhai's view, the nature of the above two types of situations is different, and the legal consequences are also different.

If the business is due to unintentional mistakes or technical failures, it is first necessary to seek understanding from consumers, especially when consumers mistakenly believe that the price is low and place an order, causing inconvenience to consumers, and need to apologize and make corresponding compensation ; If the merchant does this intentionally for the purpose of attracting traffic, and the consumer requests to continue to perform the contract, the merchant must strictly abide by the spirit of the contract.

　　As for the legal effect of the "oolong" order whose price is far lower than the actual value in practice, Cheng Ke, deputy director of the Cultural Law Research Center of the School of Cultural Industry Management, Communication University of China, told reporters that the key to judging is to analyze the merchants' display on the online shopping page. For consumers, the commodity information is an offer or just an invitation to an offer.

　　Cheng Ke analyzed that if it is an offer, once the consumer places an order, the contract will be established; if it is an invitation to offer, then the consumer's ordering behavior is regarded as an offer, and the merchant still reserves the final decision whether to sign a contract with the consumer .

According to the relevant provisions of the Civil Code, legislators believe that under normal circumstances, the content of shopping webpages should constitute an offer, and once the counterparty successfully places an order, the contract is established.

Of course, legislators also believe that if there are special terms and conditions, it is still possible to identify the shopping webpage as an invitation to make an offer.

　　Rao Wei, senior partner of Beijing Tianchi Juntai Law Firm and deputy director of the Consumer Rights and Interests Committee of the Beijing Lawyers Association, said that an "oolong" order occurs because one party to the transaction (the seller) is concerned about the price, quantity, or nature of the commodity. Orders resulting from material misunderstandings.

Once the merchant believes that there is a major misunderstanding with the consumer, as a merchant, if it cannot negotiate with the buyer, it can exercise the right of revocation according to law and request the people's court or arbitration institution to revoke the sales contract.

According to the provisions of the Civil Code, a revoked civil juristic act has no legal effect from the beginning.

　　In Rao Wei's view, regarding this hotly discussed social event, although there is a major misunderstanding of the merchant's meaning on the price, the behavior of the merchant's mini-program on the vehicle's shelves constitutes an offer, and consumers place an order to purchase and pay for it. The behavior constitutes a commitment, and the transaction meets the above-mentioned requirements for the establishment and effectiveness of the contract. Therefore, the order is legally valid until the merchant exercises the right of cancellation.

　　The reporter observed that after the "oolong" order occurred, many merchants often chose to remove the goods immediately.

　　In this regard, Cheng Ke believes that there is no problem for merchants to remove products from the shelves independently. Unless there is evidence that the merchants have malicious price fraud to attract consumers through low prices, otherwise, after the merchants find the "oolong" order, they can naturally avoid it by taking off the shelves voluntarily. further loss.

　　Liu Junhai also believes that merchants can independently remove "oolong" order products, but they need to compensate consumers for the losses caused by this, which is more in line with the principle of fairness.

　　"The question is whether consumers who have successfully placed an order before can claim that the merchant continues to provide goods or services." Cheng Ke said that if the shopping page constitutes an offer, the contract is established when the consumer successfully places the order, and the consumer can hold the already valid The contract claims to be performed at the "Oolong" price, and the merchant cannot refuse at this time, otherwise it will constitute a breach of contract.

　　"However, merchants may claim to rescind the contract according to the provisions of the Civil Code on major misunderstandings. Once the contract is rescinded, consumers can no longer claim to perform at the 'Oolong' price. At the same time, only when there is a loss of trust interests, can the Claim this part of the loss to the merchant." Cheng Ke said.

　　If a consumer insists on claiming that the merchant fulfills the delivery obligation at an "oolong" price but the merchant refuses, can the consumer protect his rights through legal means?

　　According to Rao Wei’s analysis, based on the above knowledge, consumers can claim that merchants fulfill their delivery obligations at the “oolong” price, and merchants can request the court or arbitration institution to revoke the sales contract by exercising the right of revocation.

If the merchant does not exercise the right of revocation within 5 years from the date of establishment of the sales contract, or within 5 years from the date of establishment of the contract, but fails to exercise the right of revocation within 90 days from the date of knowing or should know the reasons for revocation, the right of revocation shall be extinguished. The merchant shall perform its obligations in accordance with the sales contract.

　　"Consumers should keep electronic evidence such as product information and payment information in a timely manner during the consumption process, so as to avoid unfavorable consequences after a dispute arises. If the sales contract is revoked due to the fault of the merchant, consumers can claim damages according to law. .” Rao Wei suggested.

　　Liu Junhai reminded that merchants who sell products through online platforms should uphold the social responsibility to consumers, based on the basic strategies of risk prevention, brand building, cost control, and market share, with a heart of gratitude to consumers and a heart for the law. The heart of faith, the heart of awe for risks, and the discipline of self-discipline, to avoid the phenomenon of mislabeling commodity prices.

　　"No matter what category the 'oolong' price belongs to, it will actually have a certain negative impact on the company's goodwill, and it will also have a certain degree of harm to consumers' sense of happiness and gain, and affect consumers' experience. Therefore, Merchants still have to remember one sentence, gold awards and silver awards are not as good as consumers' compliments, and gold cups and silver cups are not as good as consumers' word-of-mouth. Only companies that consciously stand with consumers are consumer-friendly companies and can get more consumption. The approval of the author." Liu Junhai said.