In june 2023, cao saw a toto smart toilet through a second-hand platform. At the time of the consultation, da liu, the client, was said to be the owner of the factory that was hanging on the platform, and the smart toilets were equipped with brand-new, searchable security, security codes and direct supply to the kyodong and treasure platforms, which were offered at a more favourable price during the “618” period, after which they could make an order and wait for cao to notify the delivery。
Cho was very moved and paid $1180 for the goods, which, in view of the progress made in the renovation of his home, informed tai liu of the need to delay delivery。
In december 2023, cao wanted to notify tai liu of the shipment, but found that the order had been delivered and confirmed receipt and successful transactions. Cao asked dao for information on the shipment, which he had initially claimed had been shipped to check logistics, and then to have been in the depot of the trans-shipment plant to arrange for delivery。
Tsao, who felt that he was not in a position to do so, asked for a full refund and complained to the platform that his account number indicated that “the user had been disposed of for violating the regulations or the relevant rules' account number”, had learned from the platform that the receipt could be confirmed without logistical information if the seller clicked on the line。
As a result of the non-payment of the refund, cao tsao filed an action in court for the return of the goods and payment of three times the compensation。
The debate in this case focused on whether the buyer could claim liability for the operator under the consumer rights protection law for sellers on second-hand trading platforms。
Typically, transactions arising on second-hand platforms are aimed at disposing of personal idle items, which are generally not business in nature. However, in accordance with article 7 of the supreme people's court's regulation on the law applicable to the adjudication of online consumer disputes (i), the purchase of goods by consumers on second-hand commodity network trading platforms is impaired, the nature, source, quantity, price, frequency, availability of alternative distribution channels, income etc. Of the goods sold by the general seller of the people's court can be determined to be a commercial business, and the people's court should support a consumer who claims that the seller is liable for the operator under the consumer rights protection law。
In the present case, the seller, dai liu, sold the brand-new toto smart toilet through a second-hand platform, and clearly stated that it was a direct sale by the manufacturer on the platform for the kyodong treasure platform, the conduct of which clearly fell outside the scope of the sale of second-hand idle items on that platform. In the circumstances of the present case, he should be identified as an electronic commerce operator. The latter paid for the goods, and the fraudulent delivery of the goods made the transaction successful, and under articles 5 and 16 of the act on the punishment of violations of consumer interests, the fraudulent taking of consumer prices or fees without the provision of goods or services, or the non-provision of goods or services as agreed, was fraudulent. As a result, the court finally found that liu had returned the goods paid for and paid triple compensation。
With the rapid growth of the internet economy, the problems faced by consumers in securing internet access are becoming increasingly complex. Unlike the net-buying platforms such as kyoto, the secondary-hand platform itself is located to dispose of personal idle items and is generally not operational in nature, but in recent years there have also been a number of dealers specializing in business activities on such platforms。
In practice, if the nature, source, quantity, price, frequency of the seller's sale of the goods on a secondary trading platform are consistent with the nature of the operator's “profit-making” character, the seller should be identified as the operator and the consumer may claim compensation in accordance with the relevant provisions。
Article link
Consumer protection act of the people's republic of china
Article 52. If the operator provides goods or services causing damage to consumer property, he or she shall bear civil liability for repairs, re-engineering, replacement, return of goods, replenishment of the quantity of goods, refunds of goods and services or compensation for loss, in accordance with the law or the agreement of the parties。
Article 55, paragraph 1, if the operator fraudulently provides goods or services, he or she shall, at the request of the consumer, increase his or her damages by three times the price paid by the consumer for the goods or the cost of receiving the services; if the compensation is less than $500, he or she shall receive $500. If otherwise provided by law, in accordance with its provisions。
