Guangzhou daily news (all media journalist's by-laws, correspondent liu monvi) was happy to buy a special offer, but it was only a few days before the price was reduced. Can consumers ask for a full refund
On 1 november 2021, wang purchased a mobile phone and paid $5679 for the goods at the “standaway flag shop” run by skycorp. The mobile phone trade snapshot shows a “30-day premium” for commodities, and a $199 brand of wireless chargers。
On the day of the two-hundredth shopping festival, wang discovered that the mobile phone had been reduced to $5099 and that there was a difference of $580 with its payment for the goods, and applied for price protection from the company. Sky agreed to refund $456, but refused to refund the remaining difference of $124 for the original order, which included a given brand of wireless charging gifts at a premium less the amount of the gift。
According to xiao wang, the provision on which sky refused to return the $124 was a hegemonic clause and should not be used as a reason for refusing to return the price differential protected by the main commodity. And every day the company displays the price protection rules in an intuitive manner and does not see the terms of the rules when buying the goods. The court then filed an application for an order to return the difference of $124 and to cover the costs of the proceedings in the case。
For its part, skycorp argued that the sale page relating to the purchase order of goods contained a gift of $199 worth of wireless chargers in support of 30 days of price protection. The content of the price protection rules is clear and has been clearly indicated on the sale of goods page, where consumers can search for price protection provisions through multiple channels, such as the sale of goods page and the after-sale service page. Article x of this rule already states that where the original order contains gifts, the amount of the gift is deducted when applying for price protection. As a consumer, the prince shall exercise the necessary duty of care with regard to the rights he enjoys. The sum of $124 that was refused was a deduction of the value of the gift and did not violate the parties ' contract for sale。
Court: failure of merchants to provide adequate instructions on the disputed provisions of the case
Are price protection rules valid
The court noted that, according to the provision, the form clause was a clause prepared in advance by the parties for the purpose of reuse and was not negotiated with the other party at the time the contract was concluded. The rules on price protection published by day-to-day companies on the platform are by nature form clauses。
Price protection clauses are closely related to consumer shopping decisions and are provisions of great interest to consumers. As an operator, skycorp only indicated that the goods were entitled to price protection services at the point of sale of the goods in question, without specifying the content of the specific terms of the price protection services at the same time; nor did it make a significant indication of the content of the price protection provisions when entering into a contract with xiao wang. As a result, day-to-day corporation did not fulfil its obligation to provide sufficient indication of the content of the dispute clause in the case。
In addition, gifts are distinct from primary commodities and require the consent of the consumer alone in order to require the consumer to pay the price. Article 10 of the price protection rules established by skycorp, which provides that “the original order contains gifts to which the amount of the gift shall be deducted when applying for a price guarantee”, treats the gift as part of the deduction for the refund of the difference, and does not give consumers the free choice to obtain full price differential compensation by refunding the gift, and, in effect, restricts the right of consumers to receive full price differential compensation by forcing consumers to bind the gift at the time the consumer submits the offer。
Under article 26, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the law of the people's republic of china on the protection of consumers ' rights and interests, the contested provisions of the case, which to some extent limit the right of consumers to choose freely whether or not a gift is required, clearly violate the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, and the court therefore found the provision to be null and void。
In accordance with article 156 of the civil code of the people's republic of china, which states that “any civil legal act shall be null and void without prejudice to the effects of the other parts of the law, and the other parts shall remain in force”, the company shall fulfil its obligation to refund the difference in full, as agreed in other articles of the 30-day guarantee. The court therefore upheld wang's claim for a return of the difference of $124。
The judge reminds me that the online purchase carefully examines the terms and gives an unreasonable and timely opinion
As m. M. Mckhawr pointed out, operators should act in good faith and in a significant manner to alert consumers to price protection clauses, especially those that adversely affect consumer rights, and should provide clearer indications through various technical means to protect the legitimate interests of consumers。
At the same time, consumers should also keep their eyes open when selecting their merchandise for the heart on the internet, carefully read the relevant after-sale, price-fixing, dispute resolution provisions, and comment in a timely manner on unreasonable format provisions to prevent unnecessary subsequent disputes。
