The market economy is based on good faith, especially the special form of trading such as Internet auction, and it is even more important to pay attention to "hammering the final word".
Recently, the "7500 yuan auction to second-hand Mercedes-Benz car incident" has become a hot spot in public opinion.
Screenshot of Sichuan Observation video number
According to reports, on November 14, 2019, Liu Yong (pseudonym) in the "Auction - Pick Up Leaks" column of the e-commerce platform, in a second-hand car auction shop operated by "Good Car Cool", auctioned a "Mercedes-Benz GLA-class 2016 four-wheel drive 2.0T dual-clutch fashionable" used car at a price of 7500 yuan, and completed the entire payment process. However, the good car Kuku did not start, but claimed that the price was wrong before, asked Mr. Liu to refund, and was willing to "compensate" 100 yuan.
As a result, the two sides went to the court to start a lawsuit. The court in the second instance found that the auction was an expression of the true intention of the parties and was legal and valid, and ruled that Haoche Kuku Second-hand Car Brokerage (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. paid Liu Yong 196,500 yuan, and the case acceptance fee of 4300 yuan was borne by the defendant Haoche Kuku.
The "leak" online auction really picked up the "leak". 7500 yuan to buy a second-hand Mercedes-Benz car with a market value of more than 100,000 yuan, Mr. Liu is of course very happy, but the second-hand car company only wants to pay 100 yuan of "compensation", which is the legendary "buy Mercedes-Benz to give 100 yuan coupon". From "picking up leaks" of more than 100,000 yuan to "compensation" of 100 yuan, the gap is huge.
How should the "price oolongmen" frequently burst out on the Internet be evaluated at the legal level? Can a merchant unilaterally revoke the contract on the grounds of "miscalculation price"?
Online transactions, especially online auctions, are a new form of civil sale based on the Internet, but this does not change the basic characteristics of the sale and purchase contract based on "the parties agree" - as long as one party makes an offer and one party accepts the offer, such as submitting an order, the contract is established. Article 49 of the E-commerce Law stipulates that if the information on goods or services released by an e-commerce operator meets the conditions for an offer, the user selects the goods or services and submits the order successfully, and the contract is formed. This is also the basic provision of the Civil Code.
▲ The Civil Code deals with all aspects of the protection of citizens' rights and interests in social life. Screenshot / Xinhua News Agency all-media reporting platform
The Entire Civil Code, and in particular the Contract Law Part thereof, is working to guarantee freedom of contract and the ability of the parties to a contract to perform the contract. Ensuring that market entities have stable expectations for contracts, that is, the spirit of contracts, is one of the cornerstones of the operation of the socialist market economy.
Contracts concluded, whether on paper or generated through computer systems, should be enforced, unless there is a statutory reason for exclusion. After the conclusion of the contract, neither party can refuse to perform.
In this case, the used car merchants repeatedly stressed that they were "marking the wrong price" in the system, rather than expressing their "true meaning". Indeed, China's Civil Code also stipulates that "the contract is manifestly unfair or has a material misunderstanding" and is a revocable contract. Article 147 of the Civil Code stipulates that "the perpetrator has the right to request the people's court or arbitration institution to revoke a civil juristic act carried out based on a material misunderstanding".
Contracts based on "material misunderstandings" are indeed grounds for "avoidance", but "avoidable contracts" are not "invalid contracts" and remain effective contracts until they are revoked. Moreover, the revocation of the contract requires the parties to file a lawsuit with the people's court or seek arbitration, and cannot be allowed to unilaterally not deliver the goods or deny it.
In this case, neither the court of first instance nor the court of second instance agreed with the interpretation of "good car cool", and found that the car auctioned online was not a "display", but a contract offer, and after Mr. Liu submitted the order, the contract between the two parties had been reached.
The contract "is the true intention of the parties, the content does not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, it is legal and valid, and both parties should perform their obligations in strict accordance with the provisions of the law", since the merchant refuses to ship, it should be compensated for Mr. Liu's expected loss of income. This is also the legal basis for the court's second-instance judgment that the merchant should pay Mr. Liu 190,000 yuan.
It should also be seen that some e-commerce companies on the Internet, in order to attract traffic, often put low-priced products on the shelves, when consumers click into the link, they will find that the goods either do not exist, or set up strange purchase conditions, such as must be tied, can not be retail, etc.; some are the cheapest accessory prices in the display chart, so that consumers call "routine deep".
Along this line of thinking, the case can also be reflected: Has the Internet marketing behavior been based on integrity? Did you have the mind of "routine" consumers at the beginning? How could the ridiculously low "one-priced price" of 7500 yuan appear in the auction system of Mercedes-Benz?
The market economy is based on integrity, especially the special form of trading such as Internet auction, it is even more important to pay attention to "one hammer and one tone", this time the corresponding merchants may lose more than 100,000 yuan, but it is also a valuable "contract spirit lesson".
Special Commentator | Shen Bin (Media Person)
Edit | Li Xiaoxiao
Proofreading | Liu Jun