The woman bought 3 forklifts online for 2,400 yuan, and the store paid 19 yuan and only sent a screw: she photographed accessories!
Nowadays, online shopping has become an indispensable part of contemporary life, and a variety of goods can be easily purchased at the touch of a finger.
However, online shopping also has its risks and hidden dangers, such as product quality, logistics speed, after-sales service, etc., which may bring unpleasant experiences to consumers.
And among these problems, there is one particularly irritating one, which is false shipments.
On a seemingly ordinary winter morning in January 2024, Ms. Liu sat at home browsing the e-commerce platform on her mobile phone, and she had always had a keen sense of prices, but on this day, an advertisement on the platform caught her attention.
The advertisement claimed that a ton of load-bearing electric forklifts was only priced at 800 yuan, and the merchants also boasted that they could save more than 10,000 yuan.
This seemingly incredible offer aroused Ms. Liu's curiosity, and she knew that the price of electric forklifts in the market was much higher than 800 yuan, but the price was unbelievable.
So, she decided to find out if it was a big deal.
Ms. Liu entered the shop of the mysterious merchant, and the name was "New Energy Electric Forklift No. 2 Store Xin".
She browsed through the products in the store and did find an electric forklift, which looked quite good in appearance and performance, but the price was still the incredible 800 yuan.
After hesitating for a moment, Ms. Liu did not hesitate to place two orders and purchased a total of 3 electric forklifts, and she was full of anticipation and waited for the merchant's delivery notice.
However, as the wait became longer, Ms. Liu began to feel uneasy. The merchant seemed to be reluctant to deliver the goods, and the customer service avoided answering her inquiries.
It wasn't until the next day that the merchant finally responded to Ms. Liu's message. But the merchant's response surprised Ms. Liu.
"You're not buying an electric forklift, you're just buying an accessory. The merchant wrote in the message.
Ms. Liu couldn't help but be confused. She immediately checked the order, and the product name, pictures, and details clearly marked it as an electric forklift. Why would the merchant suddenly change his mind and say that this is just an accessory?
So, Ms. Liu began to communicate with the merchant. She tried to figure out what happened, but the merchant's response was perfunctory.
"You'll know for yourself. The merchant replied impatiently.
Ms. Liu was not satisfied with this answer, and she insisted that the merchant refund the money, but the merchant resolutely refused. The merchant argues that only accessories can be issued.
"Then you send it, I'll take a look at what kind of accessories, more than 800 yuan a piece!" Ms. Liu decided not to compromise anymore, she asked the merchant to send the so-called accessories.
After two days, the merchant finally sent the so-called "accessories". Ms. Liu received the courier and opened the package, only to see an ordinary screw. What's even more ridiculous is that the merchant asked Ms. Liu to pay the postage.
The postage is actually more expensive than the screws themselves!This made Ms. Liu angry, and she decided to ask the customer service of the e-commerce platform for help.
After learning of Ms. Liu's complaint, the e-commerce platform immediately intervened in the investigation. After verification, the platform's customer service confirmed Ms. Liu's purchase records and communication records with the merchant.
The platform finally made a decision to support the refund. They believe that merchants have mispriced their products and have failed to respond honestly to consumer questions. This behavior is characterized by the platform as a false delivery behavior, and according to the platform rules, the merchant will be punished accordingly.
However, Ms. Liu was not satisfied with the outcome. She believes that if the merchant honestly admits that she mismarked the price at the beginning, the shipment will suffer a lot, and she is willing to return it for a refund. But the merchant refused to admit his mistake.
After the e-commerce platform intervened, Ms. Liu's account received a refund, and she also received two cash coupons as compensation.
But Ms. Liu was not satisfied with such a compensation plan, she still insisted that the merchant deliver the goods according to the order, and found the media for help.
Ms. Liu's determination attracted widespread attention, and many people began to pay attention to the progress of the incident.
Surprisingly, when Ms. Liu tried to contact the merchant again, she found that the product was sold out, and the store interface showed "This merchant is uploading products".
Ms. Liu was unwilling to be deceived by the merchant, and she decided to interview the media in person, hoping to force the merchant to take responsibility through the power of public opinion.
A reporter contacted the business, but the business was extremely alert to the reporter's question. When asked if it was a merchant on a certain platform, the merchant not only avoided the question, but also asked the reporter: "Where did you find the phone?" and firmly denied having a store on a certain platform.
When the merchant was contacted again, the call could not be reached directly, and the merchant seemed to have adopted a strategy of evasion.
This incident has sparked heated discussions on the Internet, and netizens have expressed their opinions.
Some people believe that merchants publish false advertisements that mislead consumers and should be punished by severe laws. They praised Ms. Liu's courage in defending her rights, believing that she was defending the rights and interests of consumers.
However, there are also some who have questioned Ms. Liu's behavior. They believe that the merchant made it clear that this is an accessory, and Ms. Liu still insists on delivering the goods, does it belong to staring at the "fake one pays ten"?
This incident is not only a simple consumer dispute, but also a deep reflection on the complex relationship between e-commerce platforms, merchants and consumers.
Lawyer: A woman can claim triple compensation!
The author of the headline number "Anlu said" @安律说法对此进行了分析.
The matter caused heated discussions for a while, and some netizens believed that Ms. Liu was whimsical, and normal people knew that it was impossible to buy a forklift for a few hundred yuan.
There are also people who support Ms. Liu, believing that the merchant is doing sales, false sales, which is fraud, and the merchant involved should be severely punished.
So how should this matter be viewed from a legal point of view?
1. First of all, Article 147 of the Civil Code stipulates that the actor has the right to request the people's court or arbitration institution to revoke a civil juristic act based on a major misunderstanding.
Here, material misunderstanding refers to the act in which the actor has a misunderstanding of the nature of the act, the other party, the variety, quality, specification and quantity of the subject matter, etc., so that the consequences of the act are contrary to his own intentions and cause relatively large losses.
Specifically, in this case, if the merchant does sell the goods at a price lower than the market price due to mistake, it may request the people's court or arbitration institution to revoke it on the grounds of material misunderstanding.
Article 157 of the Civil Code stipulates that after a civil juristic act is invalid, revoked or determined to be ineffective, the property acquired by the actor as a result of the act shall be returned; The party at fault shall compensate the other party for the losses suffered thereby, and if both parties are at fault, they shall each bear the corresponding responsibility. Where the law provides otherwise, follow those provisions.
However, even if the contract is revoked for this reason, it should also be compensated accordingly for the losses caused to Ms. Liu, such as freight compensation, interest on occupied funds, etc.
2. Secondly, who asserts who bears the burden of evidence is the basic principle of civil litigation.
Article 67, paragraph 1, of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that the parties have the responsibility to provide evidence for their claims.
Article 90 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that a party shall provide evidence to prove the facts on which its own claims are based or the facts on which the claims of the other party are refuted, unless otherwise provided by law. Where a party fails to provide evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove its factual assertion before a judgment is rendered, the party who bears the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences.
Specifically, in this case, Ms. Liu established a sales contract with the merchant after placing the order, and the merchant wanted to revoke the contract on the grounds that the price was wrong, and the merchant needed to bear the corresponding burden of proof.
Corrective behaviors such as the range and time of the discount, historical sales records, whether the merchant has taken corrective measures in a timely manner after discovering the price setting error, and whether the merchant has notified the consumer in a timely manner and made up for the consumer's losses in a timely manner can all be used as considerations to determine whether the merchant has mismarked the price.
If the merchant fails to provide evidence, it will not only continue to perform the contract, but also bear the liability for breach of contract for delayed delivery, etc.
3. Finally, in practice, it is not uncommon for the merchant's background operation errors and system operation errors to cause commodity prices to be disordered in practice.
However, there are also some unscrupulous businesses, in order to "attract traffic" and "attract attention", deliberately reduce the price of the shop, and do not deliver the goods afterwards, so as to achieve order brushing or other unfair competition benefits.
For such merchants, not only must they fulfill their delivery obligations, as everyone says, it is fraud! Consumers can also claim triple compensation, and can ask the market supervision and management department to punish them. #女子花2千网购3辆叉车收到1颗螺丝#
(Zero Degree Times Review Comprehensive 1818 Golden Eye, Headline No. Author @Anlu Statement)