Adjudication Rules for Disputes over Online Sales Contracts (II)

Adjudication Rules for Disputes over Online Sales Contracts (II)

12. The voluntary purchase seller has clearly informed the expired liquor, and does not support tenfold compensation - a case of dispute over a sales contract between a commercial bank and Li on the information network

【Judgment Result】:

After trial, the people's court held that if a consumer voluntarily buys food that does not meet safety standards and makes a claim, that is, whether punitive damages should be applied to the so-called "knowingly buying counterfeit food" cannot be generalized, and should be analyzed and determined in light of the specific circumstances of each case. In this case, although the "Zhibao Special Three Whip Liquor" sold by a firm had passed the expiration date marked on the product, the firm had already explained the situation on the sales page of Taobao and reminded it to "mind taking it with caution", and at the same time indicated that the product also had collectible value that was not limited to drinking. Moreover, when Li purchased the goods involved in the case, the customer service of a certain firm reminded him again, and the above facts were sufficient to prove that the commercial bank did not deliberately mislead consumers with fraudulent intentions when selling the goods involved in the case. However, Li insisted on buying it even though he was clearly told that the goods had expired and reminded him to "mind not shooting", and immediately after the purchase, he submitted a request for a refund of one and ten compensations, and did not agree with the handling opinion of a firm to refund the payment for the goods, his subjective intention to make profits was very obvious, and there was no possibility of damage due to the purchase of expired products. His conduct violated the principle of good faith that should be followed in civil activities, and the request for punitive damages asserted by him was not justified and necessary to be protected by law, so the provisions on punitive damages should not be applied.

[Summary of the trial]:

Where a business operator has made a clear explanation and reminder of the expiration of the food at the time of sale, it shall be determined that the business operator subjectively does not have the fraudulent intent to deliberately mislead consumers to purchase the expired food. If a consumer insists on purchasing a product despite knowing this, and then files a claim for punitive damages after purchasing, the subjective intention to make profits is obvious, and there is no objective possibility of damage caused by accidentally eating the expired product, and the provisions on punitive damages should not apply. On the one hand, the adjudication of this case further refines and clarifies the subjective constituent elements that should be met when applying punitive damages, and on the other hand, it also reflects the adjustment and corrective function of the principle of good faith in the application of adjudication rules in specific cases, and is a supplement and improvement to the adjudication rule that a person who "knowingly buys counterfeit" can claim tenfold compensation in accordance with the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China, as confirmed in Guiding Case No. 23 released by the Supreme People's Court.

Case Number: :(2022) Lu 06 Min Zhong No. 2229 (2022) Lu Min Shen No. 10201

[Case source]: Shandong Provincial High People's Court released the "Top Ten Typical Cases of Sales Contract Disputes in Shandong Courts in 2022"

13. Determination of the revocation of the sales contract due to obvious unfairness: a dispute over the sales contract between Zhongzhi Liquor Spectrum (Beijing) Supply Chain Management Service Co., Ltd. and Chu Shengkai

[Summary of the trial]:

First, the conditions for the application of obvious unfairness under the law are that one party takes advantage of the situation that the other party is in a state of distress and lacks the ability to make judgments, that is, the cause is to "take advantage of the danger of others" and the "obvious unfairness" is the effect. One of the parties in this case is an ordinary consumer, and the other party is an online store operator. At the time of the conclusion of the online shopping contract, it was clear that the appellant was not in a state of distress or lacked the ability to make judgments, which did not meet the constitutive elements of obvious unfairness as prescribed by law.

Second, the appellant's assertion that he had no experience in online sales and therefore erroneously marked the purchase price of the goods with a purchase price of more than 240,000 yuan as 26,500 yuan, which was more in line with the definition of material misunderstanding. However, it did not file a counterclaim until August 3, 2020 after discovering the "erroneous pricing" on March 18, 2020, which exceeded the three-month exclusion period under the circumstances of material misunderstanding prescribed by law.

Thirdly, if the appellant agrees to deliver the goods and places an invoice after knowing the "erroneous price", it should be deemed that the person with the right of revocation has taken the initiative to perform it with the knowledge that he has the right of revocation, indicating that he has waived the right of revocation.

Case Number: :(2020) Zhe 10 Min Zhong No. 2467

14. Li v. a bookstore, a dispute over an information network sales contract - the store should be responsible for the behavior of the customer service of the online store

【Judgment Result】:

The court held that at the time of the transaction involved in the case, Zhao was an employee of M Bookstore, and as the customer service of the online store operated by M Bookstore, he negotiated with Li on the purchase of books, which was within the scope of the authority of the customer service personnel of the online store. M Bookstore did not give special reminders or inform about the methods and channels of transaction negotiation, so whether the act was through e-commerce platforms or WeChat, only the channels and methods of negotiation were different. Li has reason to believe that Zhao's act was to negotiate with M Bookstore on behalf of him, and Zhao's act should be effective against M Bookstore. An online shopping contract was established between Mr. Li and M Bookstore for the purchase of books. Later, Li proposed to change the name and quantity of the purchased books and requested a refund of the remaining money, and Zhao agreed, which should be deemed to be a change in the content of the contract between Li and M Bookstore, and M Bookstore should refund the remaining amount of 10,777 yuan, so the judgment supported Li's litigation claim.

[Typical significance]:

Convenient and fast transactions are one of the advantages of Internet consumption, and the security and stability of transactions are also the due meaning of consumer protection, and the two should not be neglected. In reality, considering the different habits and preferences of consumers in shopping and communication software, as well as other specific special circumstances, it is not appropriate to easily deny the validity of consumers' transactions with merchants just because consumers have not paid entirely through e-commerce platforms. The judgment in this case found that the store's customer service can conduct transactions on behalf of the store, which is the protection of consumers' trust in the store during the transaction, and also the maintenance of transaction order and security, which consolidates the main responsibility of the merchant, prompts and urges the merchant to strengthen internal management and supervision, so as to further regulate the sales behavior of merchants in online transactions and promote the orderly development of the Internet digital economy industry.

Source of the case: On March 15, 2022, the Supreme People's Court released 10 typical cases on the protection of consumer rights and interests

15. Case of online shopping contract dispute between Zheng and a children's food company - punitive damages are not premised on causing personal injury

[Summary of the trial]:

Where the food does not meet the food safety standards, and the consumer claims that the producer or operator bears punitive damages liability in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 148 of the Food Safety Law, and the producer or operator argues on the grounds that it has not caused personal injury to the consumer, the people's court will not support it.

[Case source]: On December 9, 2020, the Supreme People's Court released five typical cases of food safety civil disputes

16. Xu Ruiyun v. Jing Ziqiao and Zhejiang Taobao Network Co., Ltd., a dispute over an online shopping contract

[Typical significance]:

Food safety is related to the life and health of the people, and has a significant impact on social stability and economic development. In recent years, due to the frequent occurrence of major food safety accidents in the field of food safety, public health has been seriously endangered, posing a threat to the construction of a harmonious society, and the mainland is facing extremely serious food safety problems. With the globalization of trade and the economic and social development of the mainland, imported food has become an important source of food for mainland consumers, especially through online sales, and a large number of imported foods of various types have been delivered to consumers. The issue of imported food safety cannot be ignored either, and must comply with the national food safety standards of the mainland, and operators who sell imported food in violation of national food safety regulations shall bear the corresponding legal responsibility. This case makes it clear that imported food shall comply with the national food safety standards of the mainland, be inspected by the national entry-exit inspection and quarantine authority in accordance with the provisions of the relevant laws and administrative regulations on the inspection of import and export commodities, and attach the certificate of conformity in accordance with the requirements of the national entry-exit inspection and quarantine department. The defendant, Jing Ziqiao, as the operator, must ensure the safety of the food source. In this case, the milk powder imported from Russia sold by the defendant Jingziqiao through the Internet was not the food currently permitted by the mainland, and the defendant Jingziqiao could not provide the relevant customs declaration documents of the imported goods, the inspection and quarantine certificate of the imported goods, the product inspection and quarantine health certificate, the customs clearance certificate and other information that the imported food should have, so it was determined that the milk powder involved in the case was a food that did not meet the food safety standards. Because the defendant Jing Ziqiao sold food that he knew did not meet food safety standards, the plaintiff's request for a refund of the price and compensation of ten times the price was based on the law, and the court upheld it. The defendant Zhejiang Taobao Network Co., Ltd. reviewed the main information and business qualifications of the defendant Jingziqiao, and provided the real name, address and effective contact information of the seller when the plaintiff Xu Ruiyun defended his rights, and the goods involved in the case were also removed from the shelves in a timely manner, and it has fulfilled its duty of care and should not be jointly and severally liable for compensation.

Source of the case: On August 16, 2018, the Supreme People's Court released the first batch of 10 typical Internet-related cases

17. Where consumers purchase food through a third-party platform for online food trading, and their legitimate rights and interests are harmed, and the provider of the third-party platform for online food trading cannot provide the true name, address and effective contact information of the online food business operator, the provider of the third-party platform for online food trading shall compensate for the dispute over an online shopping contract between Beijing SF E-commerce Co., Ltd. and Yang

[Summary of the trial]:

The Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court held that: first, as mentioned above, Yang purchased the disputed products through the SF Preferred website operated by Beijing SF E-commerce Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "SF Company"); Second, although SF submitted relevant evidence to prove that it had registered the real name of Sichuan Ganyusha Company, an online food operator, and reviewed the food circulation license and the national industrial product production license, according to the feedback and reply issued by the Market Supervision and Administration Bureau of Qingyang District and Jinniu District of Chengdu City, the address of Sichuan Ganyusha Company provided by SF was untrue. Since SF did not adduce evidence to prove that it had provided other true and effective contact information about Sichuan Ganyusha Company, the court of first instance had a corresponding factual and legal basis for ordering SF to bear 10 times the liability for compensation to consumers, and this court affirmed it.

Case No.: :(2017) Jing 03 Min Zhong No. 3433

18. If the online trading platform provides the seller's registration information and effective contact information in a timely manner according to the needs of consumers, and fulfills the corresponding disclosure obligations, it shall not be liable for compensation - Liu Kun and Foshan Shunde Shabina Furniture Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Tmall Network Co., Ltd. Online shopping contract dispute

[Summary of the trial]:

When a consumer requests an online trading platform provider to provide the seller's true name, address, and effective contact information, the online trading platform provider shall provide the consumer with the seller's registration information and effective contact information in a timely and accurate manner within a reasonable time, and perform the corresponding disclosure obligations, and shall not be liable for compensation. Where an online trading platform provider clearly knows or should know that a seller or service provider is using its platform to infringe upon the lawful rights and interests of consumers, but fails to take necessary measures, it bears joint and several liability with the seller or service provider in accordance with law. To determine whether an online trading platform provider constitutes a knowable situation, a comprehensive judgment should be made based on factors such as the nature and manner in which the online trading platform provider provides the services, the likelihood of infringement, the ability to manage the information, and the degree of obviousness of the infringing information.

Case Number: :(2016) Liao 0291 Min Chu No. 2548

19. If the goods purchased online by a consumer are fraudulently claimed by others during the delivery process, and the consumer claims that the seller and the delivery person are jointly liable for compensation, the seller shall bear the liability for compensation according to the principle of relativity of contract - Yang Bo v. Bayannur Hezhong Yuantong Express Co., Ltd. Urad Qianqi Branch and Fu Yingchun Online Shopping Contract Dispute

[Summary of the trial]:

If the consumer and the seller enter into an online shopping contract, and the consumer has completed the payment obligation, the seller shall complete the delivery obligation in accordance with the contract. Where the goods purchased online by consumers are fraudulently claimed by others due to the delivery personnel's failure to verify the relevant identity information during the delivery process, and the consumer claims that the seller and the delivery person are jointly liable for compensation, based on the principle of relativity of contract, the online shopping contract only binds the parties to the contract, and the consumer can only claim compensation liability from the seller, and the request that the delivery party should bear the liability for compensation should not be supported.

Source of the case: On June 16, 2015, the Supreme People's Court released 10 typical cases of consumer rights protection

20. Merchants advertise promotions in the form of false discounts at the original price, constituting price fraud -- Zhang v. Shanghai Rope Art Co., Ltd., an online shopping contract dispute

[Summary of the trial]:

The merchant advertises the promotion in the form of a false discount at the original price, which constitutes fraud, causing the consumer to fall into a misunderstanding and conclude a transaction, and ultimately not only has to bear the obligation to return the purchase price, but also bears the liability for three times the price of the goods.

The People's Court of Hualong District, Puyang City, Henan Province held that the plaintiff Zhang purchased from the defendant Shanghai Rope Art Company "Rope Art Pure Gold Gold Ingot Pixiu Bracelet Men's 3D Hard Gold Road Pass Transfer Bead Bracelet Female Couple Jewelry" and "Rope Art Gold Garnet Pixiu Bracelet 3D Hard Pure Gold 999 Road Pass Transfer Beads and Gold Beads for Men and Women", and the two parties established a real and effective sales contract relationship, which was an expression of the true intentions of both parties, and the content did not violate the mandatory provisions of relevant laws and administrative regulations, and was legal and valid. According to the "Provisions on the Prohibition of Price Fraud" and the <禁止价格欺诈行为的规定>"Notice on the Interpretation of Relevant Terms" and other provisions, if the fictitious original price or fictitious preferential discount is used to trick others into purchasing, it shall be regarded as price fraud, in which the "original price" refers to the lowest transaction price of the transaction bill that the operator has traded on the trading venue within seven days before the promotion; If there is no transaction within the previous 7 days, the price of the last transaction before this promotion will be used as the original price. In this case, the defendant Shanghai Rope Art Company failed to submit that the goods involved in the case were sold at the original price of the subject matter within seven days before the promotional activities, which constituted price fraud, so the defendant Shanghai Rope Art Company should be liable for compensation according to the provisions of the Consumer Rights Protection Law. Plaintiff Zhang's claim that the defendant Shanghai Rope Art Company should refund the price of 6,446 yuan and compensate three times the amount of 19,338 yuan is based on law and should be supported. The plaintiff, Zhang, should return the purchased goods at the same time as the refund of the purchase price by Shanghai Rope Art Company, and if the goods cannot be returned, the purchase price will be deducted.

Case Number: :(2018) Yu 0902 Min Chu No. 4635

21. If a third-party billing information service platform fails to fulfill its duty of care and provides information that is inconsistent with the facts, resulting in the failure of consumers' reasonable trust, it shall be held liable - Wang Sheng v. Shanghai Paycom Information Service Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Taobao Network Co., Ltd., a network trust dispute case

[Summary of the trial]:

On the Taobao platform, the subject of the transaction is to recharge the bill, and the inspection process is to check the payment status on the Toll Pass website, and then decide whether to pay. As a third-party billing information service platform, Paypay was liable for failing to fulfill its duty of care and providing information that was inconsistent with the facts, which ultimately led to the failure of the reasonable trust of others. Taobao was exempted from liability because it had fulfilled its obligation to protect trust by introducing Alipay and implementing real-name authentication.

Case No.: :(2009) Huang Min Yi (Min) Chu Zi No. 2562

Transferred from the same judgment rule for similar cases