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

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


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.

In this regard, the seller argued that the companys employees were not familiar with the price of liquor and the relevant operation of Taobao online store, and mistakenly set the direct selling price of Maotai liquor involved in the case with purchase price of 240000 yuan as 26500 yuan, which resulted in the wrong price setting of the commodity.

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 rooftop court held that:

The defendant announced the details of Maotai liquor involved in the case in the online store. Chu used his mobile phone client to purchase Maotai liquor involved in the case and completed the payment. The sales contract was established and effective according to law, and the seller had the obligation to deliver.

In addition, the defendant did not file a counterclaim until August 3, which has exceeded the statutory three-month period for the removal of reprimand, and the right of revocation is extinguished.

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 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.

There are four controversial issues in this case

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.

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.

The sellers objection to the jurisdiction of the case does not affect the exercise of the revocation right. Although the epidemic situation has brought some inconvenience to the litigants, it has not caused the appellant to be unable to exercise the right of revocation. Therefore, it should be considered that the period of exclusion has passed and the right of revocation is extinguished.

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

Maotai liquor involved in the case is scarce due to limited distribution, but it is not unique and irreplaceable. The seller, knowing the difference between the consideration paid by Chu and the purchase price of Maotai liquor involved in the case, still agreed to deliver the goods and issue the invoice, which indicated that he acquiesced in the economic losses caused by the performance of the contract.

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. Whether the Alibaba auction platform management standard is applicable to this case, the seller claims to apply the relevant provisions of transaction not to sell in the specification, and compensate 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. Source: Chen Hequn, editor in charge of daily economic news_ NB12679

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.

Is Alibaba auction platform management standard applicable to this case

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.