265000 yuan of Maotai was sold by 26500 yuan? The court ruled that the seller did not deliver the goods

 265000 yuan of Maotai was sold by 26500 yuan? The court ruled that the seller did not deliver the goods

Photo source: visual China

On March 17, this year, consumer Chu bought a Panamanian international gold medal commemorative liquor of a Taobao merchant with a direct purchase price of 26500 yuan on Taobao platform, and paid the full price.

The next day, the shop asked to cancel the order for the wrong price setting. After Chu insisted on delivery, the seller agreed to deliver the goods on March 20.

In the process of negotiation, Chu promised to voluntarily compensate the seller 50000 yuan. However, the seller informed Chu after delivery that the goods were damaged during loading and it was difficult to transfer the goods, so it was unable to deliver Maotai liquor.

The plaintiff Chu bought a jar of Maotai liquor at a price of 26500 yuan. After finding the mistake on March 18, the defendant contacted the plaintiff in time for negotiation, but failed.

The defendant held that it would be unfair to continue to perform the contract, so he did not agree to continue to perform the contract. In addition, the plaintiff Chu had no actual loss in the transaction of this case. Even if there was a loss, according to the provisions of the Alibaba auction platform management standards, the scope of the defendants compensation was only 5 times of the amount of the deposit paid by the plaintiff.

In this regard, the defendant filed a counterclaim request to the Tiantai Court: to cancel the Maotai liquor sales contract concluded by the plaintiff and the defendant on March 17, 2020.

The plaintiff Chu argued against the counterclaim that he did not agree with the counterclaim request of the defendant. He believes that the sales contract of both parties is established and valid according to law, and there is no case of revocable contract.

The rooftop court held that:

The management standard of Ali auction platform mentioned by the defendant is a standard term, which has not been brought to the attention of the buyer in a reasonable way. In fact, it exempts the seller from the delivery obligation and damages the main rights of the buyer, so it can not be applied naturally.

In this case, the plaintiff Chu is an ordinary consumer, and the defendant is the operator of an online shop. When the sales contract was concluded, the defendant was not in a state of distress or lack of judgment ability, so the contract could not be revoked on the ground of obvious unfairness.

The defendant argued that the Maotai liquor involved in the case had been damaged in the process of delivery, and there was no evidence to prove that the subject matter of the case belonged to category goods, and the defendant should continue to perform the contractual obligations.

The plaintiffs claim for compensation for economic losses by the defendant lacks basis and is not supported.

On September 11, the first instance of Tiantai court ruled that the defendant delivered 53 degrees 30L 60 Jin Guizhou Maotai liquor to the plaintiff, and at the same time, the plaintiff Chu Mou paid the defendant 50000 yuan; rejected Chu Mous claim for reasonable compensation of 11000 yuan; and rejected the defendants counterclaim.

The defendant appealed to Taizhou intermediate peoples court because he did not accept the judgment.

In the second instance, the parties did not submit new evidence. The facts found by Taizhou intermediate peoples court after trial are consistent with those confirmed by Tiantai court of the original trial, which confirms the facts confirmed by the court of original trial.

On November 20, Taizhou intermediate court ruled that the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.

Is the conclusion of the contract obviously unfair

The sellers claim for obviously unfair should be based on Article 151 of the general principles of civil law.

The general principles of civil law stipulates the applicable conditions for obvious unfairness, that is, one party should take taking advantage of the other partys danger as the reason and obvious unfairness as the result.

In this case, Chu is an ordinary consumer, and the seller is an online store operator.

When the online shopping contract is concluded, the seller obviously does not exist in a state of crisis or lack of judgment ability, which can not meet the requirements of obvious unfairness in the general principles of civil law.

Has the period for the seller to apply to the court to cancel the contract

The seller claims that they have no practical experience in online sales and are not familiar with the operation, so they set the price of Maotai liquor involved in the case wrong, and set the purchase price of goods with the purchase price of 240000 yuan as 26500 yuan, resulting in the behavior consequences contrary to its true meaning and causing great losses. This situation is more in line with the definition of major misunderstanding in the law.

According to the general provisions of civil law, the period for excluding the right of revocation based on major misunderstanding is defined as three months from the date of knowing or should know the cause of revocation.

In this case, the seller found the wrong bid price on March 18, 2020, but did not apply to the peoples court or arbitration institution for revocation until August 3, 2020.

In addition, if the Seller agrees to deliver the goods after knowing the wrong bid price, and actually issues the delivery order, it should be deemed that the revocation right holder voluntarily submits the performance under the condition of knowing that he has the right to cancel, indicating that the seller has given up the cancellation right.

Does the sellers delivery of Maotai liquor involved in the case belong to de facto impossibility of performance

The seller argued that the Maotai liquor involved in the case has been damaged and lost, and there is no evidence to prove that its claim to continue to perform significantly increases the cost and is not suitable for continuous performance. Therefore, the seller should follow the principle of good faith to perform the contract obligations.

The seller claims to apply the regulation of not to sell the transaction in accordance with the provisions of the standard, and pay compensation according to five times of the amount of deposit paid by Chu.

This provision is a clause for the operators of e-commerce platform to deal with the illegal behaviors of operators in the platform. It does not exempt the seller from the obligation to deliver the subject matter in accordance with the effective sales contract, and can not be used as the basis for the seller not to deliver the Maotai liquor involved in the case.