Is it a breach of contract if the product is snapped up after the wrong price is marked, and the mer

After the product was bought because of the wrong marking**, the merchant also canceled the order, which I think is a breach of contract. Consumers consume goods, and it must be because the best aspects are more in line with their own minds and the cost performance is relatively high, so they will carry out a series of rush purchases. At this time, if the merchant marks ** because of a moment of negligence, he should also be responsible for his own behavior, and the wrong **, and the consumer has already placed an order, it can only be sold to the consumer according to the wrong **.

Many people may say that this will cause a lot of losses to the merchant, and it is understandable that they cancel the order. But doing business is like this, according to the clear price, one is willing to fight, and the other is willing to suffer. Isn't it also written at many counters that once the product leaves the counter, it will not be responsible?

If the consumer did not understand ** at the time, ** purchased an item, then the merchant will also have a reason to reject the consumer's refund request. <>

For this kind of mislabeled goods, consumers buy it, and the merchant regrets it, which must be a breach of contract. Just imagine, if the reverse is the opposite, the ** elevation is high, and the consumer buys the same product, then the merchant will not refund the difference, right? In the market, it is necessary to pay attention to such rules, and some things must be agreed before the transaction is successful, rather than consumers are optimistic about **, have paid, and then cancel the order for others.

This is very unfair to consumers, and there seem to be a lot of losses caused by the wrong setting of the merchant. At this time, they can only deliver the goods obediently, rather than rashly canceling the customer's order. The customer took a fancy to ** and bought the product, in principle, there is no mistake at all, so the order cannot be canceled just like that.

For merchants, it can only be said that you should pay more attention to it at ordinary times, check it several times when setting **, and don't wait for the loss to be annoyed. At this time, there is no way to cancel the order, because it will be a breach of contract to cancel the order at this time.

This is a breach of contract by the merchant. The price is the responsibility of the merchant, and the public information is how much the consumer buys, which is the legitimate rights and interests of the consumer. The merchant cancels the order, violates the rights and interests of consumers, and deceives consumers.

The product is snapped up after the wrong label**, and the merchant cancels the order, which is a breach of contract. This agreement is that the customer is just a normal consumption, and the customer does not have any problems, because of the merchant's own problems, so it is a breach of contract.

I think it is a breach of contract, this is the merchant's own negligence marked wrong**, he should pay for this error, there is no reason to cancel the order.

It's a breach of contract, because it's the merchant's fault, so they should pay for their wrongdoing.

I think that even if the price of the goods is marked, consumers should not find a reason to cancel the order when they place an order, and the wrong pricing of the goods itself is not a problem for consumers, and the merchant can modify it in time, but it cannot unilaterally cancel the order of the consumer, and can negotiate compensation or deliver the goods as usual, as a consumer must resolutely safeguard their legitimate interests.

I think this situation is also understandable, after all, merchants also have to do business to make money and make a living, but after the adjustment of **, the merchant should apologize to the customers who have snapped up the original product and negotiate whether to continue to buy the product.

Requiring merchants to ship goods according to orders, the carelessness of merchants should pay for their own mistakes, rather than making consumers pay.

The wrong label of the goods is rushed, depending on whether this ** has caused serious losses to themselves, under the premise of causing serious losses, then the transaction is obviously unfair, at this time the merchant can not fulfill the promise. <>

In life, there are many people who like to shop online, and see that the ** of some goods is very low, and then some people will choose to buy in large quantities, because the ** of these goods is already lower than the cost price, and whoever can buy it can make money. In this case, the merchant's interests are lost, and the loss is very large, and the merchant can claim non-fulfillment of the promise.

If the goods have been sent, it is difficult to recover the goods in this case, unless the value of these goods is very large, and the merchant can choose arbitration if the consumer does not agree in the process of recovery. <>

According to Article 151 of the General Provisions of the Civil Law, if one party takes advantage of the other party's distress and lack of judgment ability, resulting in the civil juristic act being obviously unfair when it is established, the injured party has the right to request the people's court or arbitration institution to revoke it. It can be seen that in the case of obvious unfairness, the merchant can protect his rights.

However, in the case of a small loss, the merchant chooses to recover the goods, then the reputation of the merchant will be damaged, so when the merchant deals with the problem of the goods, he must pay attention to whether the goods are wrongly labeled, and once the goods are wrongly marked, the goods may be snapped up. At this time, there will be a lot of problems later, such as refund negotiation problems, consumer review problems, and merchant reputation problems, all of which arise because of a small fault. <>

Finally, when the merchant encounters an obvious unfair transaction, it can not fulfill the promise, but in the case of a small loss, it is recommended to fulfill such a promise, such as selling a few pieces of clothing, each piece of clothing loses a few dollars, and the sales orders are not very many, then the promise can be fulfilled in this case.

Merchants need to deliver on their promises. Because doing business requires integrity. Learn to pay for your mistakes, too. Avoid the same mistake next time, and remove the items that were not snapped up from the shelves in time.

From an objective point of view, it is necessary to fulfill commitments. Because the marked price is ****, it is announced to the public, if you do not fulfill this marked price, it is an act of deceiving consumers.

What is needed is that the responsibility lies with the store's own mistakes, which are caused by their negligence, and pay for themselves.

Rushing to buy goods that are wrongly marked by the merchant is an act of wool. However, the fault of this behavior lies with the merchant himself, and if the merchant chooses to apologize, it is understandable to cancel the order. Canceling the order directly is equivalent to making consumers pay for their mistakes, and it is normal for consumers to complain.

And now there are too many merchants using the "wool picking" incident to add fame to themselves, and no one is sure whether it is suspected of hype.

1. The merchant's mistake should not make the consumer pay for the merchant's wrong order, indicating that it is his own mistake in the operation, which has nothing to do with the consumer. It is also human nature for consumers to choose cheap goods to buy. From this point of view, it is reasonable for the merchant to apologize to the consumer and explain the reason for the other party to cancel the order.

If necessary, compensate the other party for something. But the merchant cancels the order at will, which is to deceive the consumer, which is tantamount to letting the consumer pay for his mistakes. In the case of a small difference, it does not hurt for consumers to choose a relatively cheap one.

However, in the case of a huge difference, it is equivalent to consumers picking wool. Such behavior is also against morality.

2. The law stipulates that although both parties are wrong, we have to listen to the law after the lawsuit. There are many related cases, and according to the judgment results of most cases, the law is biased in favor of merchants. That is to say, after the merchant himself marks the wrong **, as long as there is a huge difference, and it cannot be proved that it is **, preferential benefits and other benefits, the law allows the merchant to cancel the order.

According to the relevant provisions of the Civil Law, it is legally unfair for one party to take advantage of the other party's lack of judgment ability. In this case, the consumer is canceled from the order and is not even eligible to claim compensation.

3. The problem of merchant hypeNow many merchants like to hype and improve the reputation of their stores. And pretending to be "woolened" is a means of hype. The fruit shop that made a lot of noise before is a case of successful hype.

Consumers go to "wool" at this time, which is tantamount to being used.

I support the consumer, since it is their own mistake, they should not force the order to cancel.

Snapped up the wrong price of the goods in the store, and complained after the order was canceled, which is an act of wool picking. It is because of the mistakes of the merchants themselves, and it is normal for consumers to complain about them because of their own mistakes.

The complaint is understandable from the consumer's point of view, because it is a product that he has purchased and paid for in a legitimate way.

I am an office employee of a company, and the office is generally responsible for purchasing office supplies for the company. One day, I saw an air purifier in a certain **, with a price tag of 1 yuan. After consulting the leader, I placed an order and paid to purchase 100 units for the company.

Unexpectedly, the next day**customer service called** that the original price of the goods was 100 yuan, due to the operation error, the standard ant resistance was two zeros, and it could not be shipped at present, please understand and cancel the order. The company and I do not agree with the store's statement, and believe that **low standard** is its **means, and it should be delivered. The two sides failed to reach an agreement after consultation.

**Low mark**, whether it is its **means or human error, determines whether it can cancel the order.

On the one hand, Article 491 of the Civil Code stipulates that: "If the information on goods or services published by one of the parties through the Internet and other information networks meets the conditions of the offer, the contract shall be formed when the other party selects the goods or services and submits the order, unless otherwise agreed by the parties." Therefore, if you can prove that the **low bid** is its **means, which is the true expression of its intentions, then, in the case of unilateral cancellation of the order, you can require it to bear the responsibility of paying liquidated damages and compensating for losses.

On the other hand, if it is indeed an operational error, the order can be cancelled in accordance with the law. Article 147 of the Civil Code stipulates that: "The actor has the right to request the people's court or arbitration institution to revoke a civil juristic act based on a major misunderstanding."

Article 152 stipulates that if a party to a material misunderstanding fails to exercise the right of revocation within 90 days from the date on which the party knew or should have known the reasons for revocation, the right of revocation shall be extinguished. In this case, although the sales contract between the two parties has been established in accordance with the law, ** has the right to request the court to rescind the contract within 90 days. Because the store is incorrectly labeled**, and the price is very different from the original price of the product, this constitutes a major misunderstanding.

If the right of withdrawal is not exercised within the specified period, the obligation to deliver the goods shall be fulfilled.

The seller can exercise the right of withdrawal, but the buyer can hold the seller liable. Article 500 of the Civil Code stipulates that if a party violates the principle of good faith in the process of concluding a contract, causing losses to the other party, it shall be liable for compensation. In this case, ** failed to fulfill the duty of care, violated the obligation of good faith in the contractual obligations, and damaged your trust interests, so you have the right to require the store to bear the liability for negligence in contracting and compensate for losses.

Although the seller can request the court to revoke the sales contract, due to the fault of both parties, according to Article 157 of the Civil Code, the seller and the buyer shall each bear the corresponding responsibilities. If the "Wool Party" uses threats or coercion to demand large amounts of compensation or compensation from the merchants, it may be suspected of extortion, fraud and other crimes.