"1 penalty" refund triggered a lawsuit

Recently, the Chengdu Internet Court tried a lawsuit caused by a refund of "one penny".

Li purchased a sweeping dustpan set through an e -commerce platform of a Ministry of Commerce and Trade, a Jinniu District of Chengdu, with a free shipping price of 14.2 yuan. Because Li is a new user, after enjoying the platform red envelope deduction, bank card payment with gifts, and direct merchant reduction activities, Li actually only paid 0.01 yuan, and the receiving address agreed by the two parties was Shanghai. After placing the order, Li did not receive the goods, and found that the merchant sent the goods to Henan Province by querying the logistics information. Li has contacted the customer service many times, and no one responded. Li also applied for the customer service intervention of the e -commerce platform and asked for replenishment items. However, not only did the merchant not replenish, but also canceled the order directly. The e -commerce platform subsequently returned 0.01 yuan to Li's payment account. Li found that related offers such as the platform red envelopes that had been received before were unable to use it again due to expiration. Li believes that the behavior of the Ministry of Commerce constitutes consumer fraud, and sued the merchant to return the payment to the payment of 14.2 yuan and compensate for 500 yuan.

The court trial believes that the evidence of the case can only prove that the merchant has not shipped the address provided by Li, and cannot prove that the merchant deliberately concealed the real situation or deliberately published false information that caused Li to fall into a wrong understanding and make a violation of the true meaning. In other words, the existing evidence is not enough to determine the subjective intentional intention of merchants. However, because the merchant's failure to perform the delivery obligations in accordance with the agreement has constituted a breach of contract, 12.19 yuan based on the platform red envelope and bank card payment and other discounts should be identified as the loss caused by the merchant after the contract is terminated. Yuan and 0.01 yuan, which had returned to the plaintiff's account, did not belong to Li's loss. In the end, the court ruled that the defendant's Ministry of Trade compensated Li to lose 12.19 yuan.

Judge said: In today's increasingly developed Internet economy, commodity transactions with the Internet as the carrier are no longer limited by space, time, and types. As small as a button, as large as a house, they can be traded through the network platform. For both parties in the transaction, regardless of whether the value of the commodity is high or low, they should adhere to the principle of integrity and abide by the spirit of the contract. Market operators cannot reduce the service level at will because of small transaction amounts, and do not reasonable or lift the contract for reasonable requirements for consumers. Only in this way can we accumulate a good reputation. In the fierce market competition, we can retain customers and win with integrity.

Reporter Kang Sha

- END -