Mr. Liaoning recently reported to the press that he had refused to accept the vehicles from the “official self-employment” shop of the “appregated” app, which was sold under a single used car for nearly $40,000, and that he had taken them to pick up when he discovered that the vehicles had been blocked by a speedbox. On several occasions, his request for refund of the car purchase deposit was rejected by the platform。
On 26 february, mr. Lee stated that the “know the king” platform personnel said that the down payment and logistics charges would be refunded within 10 working days, totalling $5,100. At the time of the submission, no refund had been received from the platform。
On 1 march, the staff of the shop in question responded that the vehicle in question did not exist, such as in the carton area, that the shop wanted the vehicle to be sent for re-checking, “finally as a result of the review”, and that the refund of the vehicle was not known。
According to mr. Lee, in february of this year, he set up a “vision x6220 1. 4t auto-luxurious” second-hand car at the app's “know cricket business city” (hereinafter referred to as the “jongchun cai” store) for a single sale of $39. 9 million. The order interface is labelled “platform security: in-depth quality checks, 7 days of free-flowing, problem car buy-backs for life”, and provides vehicle inspection reports, as well as various vehicle purchase security guarantees such as “60 days comprehensive quality assurance”。
On 13 february, mr. Lee's family went to the twin towers of hoang city, liaoning province, to pick up the car and, during the pilot drive, it was discovered, inter alia, that the vehicle had been delayed by a speedbox. In the recording provided by mr. Lee, staff members admitted that the vehicle “did at times break a card” and “offset a card at times”。
In the car-buying community, mr. Lee repeatedly communicated with the “know-your-car” staff and requested the refund of the down payment. However, the staff member sent a test video of the vehicle in question, stating that the vehicle was not malfunctioning, that “the camera provided a normal break, which is unusual on your side, and that everyone used different methods and feelings”, and that mr. Lee was hoping to sign the vehicle. It was also stated that the vehicles were still under warranty and that maintenance services were available. If mr. Lee does not agree to lift the car, he is found liable for breach of contract and logistical costs. Following mr. Lee's refusal, the staff member requested mr. Lee to provide evidence and to consult a third party body to test and issue a formal report。
On the morning of 25 february, the “know cricket” staff proposed a solution to refund $2900, which mr. Lee refused. On 26 february, the “know the king” staff further stated that the full amount would be returned within 10 working days。
According to news reports, the changchun caichen store is located on the app commodity page, known as “official camp”, but the order page provided by mr. Lee shows it as “accompaniment”. The shop's publicly publicized operating licence indicates that it belongs to chang chun jung hoang motor sales services ltd., which is the same party as in the car purchase agreement provided by mr. Lee。
On the morning of 1 march, a press conference called the official “know about the autobots” passenger service and asked about the vehicle failure at the reception site. The other party indicated that feedback would be provided to the door shop staff, whether the condition for a return was met on the basis of the actual condition of the vehicle, or to the client's active contact platform, where the customer service would record the user feedback and synchronize it with the processing commissioner。
In response to a question about the blocking of cardon in the sale of vehicles, the operator stated that “it is not precluded that such a situation would arise. However, the question of whether the specific vehicle was pre-positioned at the time, or for what reason, requires further verification”。
In the case of the conversion of the platform camp shop into a federated shop, the client reported that, as a rule, “the shop he bought when the user looked at it as it was shown”. It was stressed that union stores also enjoyed the same after-sales guarantees as direct-camp shops。
On the afternoon of the same day, a press conference was called at the chang chun kai chee store. The staff members stated that the shop belonged to the union shop, “it was self-employed, not a direct camp shop”, “it was under the direct flag of the autobots, and we were part of the autobots”. It also stated that the vehicle in question did not exist, such as carton, and that it was intended to be sent by the shop for re-examination, “finally as a result of the re-examination”, and that the refund of the vehicle was not known。
In connection with the above-mentioned car purchase dispute, the analysis of zhao yang-sun, a senior partner and well-known pro bono lawyer at shaanxi shunda, indicated that while the platform promoted various security rights, when a consumer called a car, there was a failure of a speed transformer card and it was confirmed by the staff that the delivery of the vehicle did not comply with the agreement and the fundamental breach of contract, and that the purpose of the contract for the purchase of the vehicle could not be fulfilled, and that mr. Lee's family's refusal to collect the vehicle on the spot was a legitimate right and fully met the conditions for a return and refund。
According to zhao, the core evidence in the case consisted of a down payment record, purchase agreement, vehicle inspection report, platform publicity, on-site communication records and proof of failure. Mr. Lee could first, in consultation with the platform, claim a full refund and double return, without being able to file a claim for amparo through 12315, 12345, or bring a court action for the cancellation of the contract, the refund of the down payment and the application of the down payment; it was noted that the down payment should not exceed 20 per cent of the total price of the vehicle and the partial non-applicability of the double return rule, but should still be returned in full。
