The court to freeze the Alipay the seller delivered TV — Law —

The court to freeze the Alipay     the seller delivered TV — Law — original title: Mr. Zhang court to freeze the Alipay TV Dongguan delivery seller spent 9597 yuan to buy 3 LCD TVs in the Tmall store a shop, but was told to 90 thousand yuan postage. Due to repeated negotiations have no progress, but under the circumstances, Mr. Zhang will be the store and Tmall mall on the court. Last December 10th, Dongguan first people’s court asked the shop to fulfill the contract, do not need to pay the postage in case of delivery of the 3 sets of the TV to buy Mr. zhang. Yesterday, the reporter learned from the court, because the shop refused to fulfill the obligation of delivery, before the date of the executive staff of the court in Zhejiang to freeze the accounts of Alipay shop. Under pressure, then, the shop initiative to contact the court to cooperate with the implementation of the work, and Mr. Zhang delivered 3 TV sets. Case review: pay 90 thousand freight to delivery in March 17, 2015, Mr. Zhang spent 9597 yuan to buy 3 LCD TV Tmall mall shop. The next day, Mr. Zhang told the shop for distribution to supplement postage 90 thousand yuan. Subsequently, Mr. Zhang repeated and the shop negotiations, hope the other party to perform the contract to send goods, but the other insisted the first pay 90 thousand yuan freight. As a result, Mr. Zhang will be the home appliance stores in Beijing, a company specializing in science and Technology Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the technology company) and Tmall mall on the first people’s Court of Dongguan. Merchant: wrong price contract is null and void the trial scene, the technology company argued that the company in March 17, 2015, the case involving commodity prices have been adjusted, but due to negligence, not on the price adjustment to be verified, resulting in the original price of 31999 yuan of goods by the price of 3199 yuan. The technology company said, without any preferential activities in the company, the company is Mr. Zhang’s negligence, the case involving a lot of malicious purchase goods. Tmall mall argued that the case is due to the dispute arising from the sale of online shopping contract, Tmall is only to provide network trading platform, not the other side of the transaction, without joint and several liability. Court: the seller should bear the responsibility of the court found that after the trial, the dispute is due to the company’s electronic technology input errors, not timely correction of the corresponding electronic data, the fault lies in technology companies. Therefore, the adverse consequences should be borne by the company. On the other hand, according to the court to verify the evidence that the technology company asked Mr. Zhang to pay delivery postage 90 thousand yuan, the claim is beyond the scope of the contract is a major change to the contents of the contract, Mr. Zhang denied legal evidence. The court held that Tmall is a service provider of the network platform, which is not the parties to the contract and the actual performance of the contract. Therefore, Mr. Zhang asked Tmall to bear joint and several liability claims, lack of motivation. Finally, the court of first instance ruling science and technology companies continue to fulfill the case involving the contract, and the 10 day after the verdict came into effect in the delivery of LCD TV, Mr. Zhang, Mr. on the mall to dismiss the claims of Tmall mall. News executives went to Hangzhou)相关的主题文章: