Sichuan Chengdu, Mr. Tang, in 2014 November, to see a computer motherboard Jingdong promotional posters in the shopping website, the price of 619 yuan in the board during the event each reduction of 50 yuan, is 569 yuan, Mr. Tang will buy 5 pieces. However, when Mr. Tang received the goods, check the product information, but found that the price problem.
suffered " price fraud " consumer rights
Tang: 589 yuan a piece of board, I paid a total of more than 2 thousand, a look back on the poster price down should be 569 yuan, why I received 589 yuan? I ask the Jingdong, the Jingdong told me is wrong.
Tang in consultation with Jingdong fails, the prosecution of the Jingdong to the Wuhou District City People’s Court of Chengdu, asked the Jingdong to refund the full amount of money, and according to the consumer protection law for three times the compensation.
in the first instance, the Jingdong argued that the poster in the price of 619 yuan is the price adjustment period, the staff operational errors caused by the content of the page in the preferential price is 639 yuan, 50 yuan, which is 589 yuan, and Mr. Tang added to the shopping cart, orders, payments are required to confirm the price, and not deliberately the price of fraud, also did not give Mr. Tang caused cognitive errors. But Mr Tang does not agree with this interpretation.
Tang: when the price adjustment did not adjust the poster price, by adjusting the commodity prices, this is not cheating me? The use of a low-cost posters to attract me in, to the settlement of the time to raise the price of.
operators constitute " price fraud " consumer compensation
The defense opinion
court of first instance of the Jingdong to be admissible, at the same time, the market price of the commodity price volatility, mistakes in operation is difficult to avoid, the Jingdong has not deliberately price fraud, judgment of Jingdong to refund 100 yuan payment overcharged Mr Tang, Mr Tang dismissed other claims.
After the verdict of
, Mr. Tang refused to accept the appeal to the Chengdu intermediate people’s court. August 4, 2015, the second instance court ruled that the Jingdong in the production of promotional pages when the error did not promptly declare to consumers, the objective of the implementation of misleading price means, constitute price fraud. Verdict Jingdong refund Mr. Tang full payment, and in accordance with the purchase price of three times the price of compensation.
what is "price gouging" behavior?
in the judgment of this case, the first and second instance court mentioned a word – "price fraud", however, the court for "price fraud" that the verdict is different, resulting in a world of difference. So, what is it