一、郑飞诉浙江天猫供应链管理有限公司网络购物合同纠纷案

Zheng Fei v. Zhejiang Tmall Supply-chain Management Co., Ltd. （case regarding dispute over online shopping）

【裁判摘要】

电商经营者通过网络向不特定人群发布商品促销信息，内容真实确切且可能会对众多消费者产生影响，该促销信息应视为要约行为。消费者有理由相信电商作为专业的经营者应审慎发布促销信息，对该促销信息寄予合理信赖，故该促销信息应属不可撤销要约。而电商经营者违背诚实信用原则，撤销促销信息的行为损害了消费者的合理信赖利益，应承担赔偿责任。

[Judgment Abstract]

Where an e-commerce operator releases through internet the information of commodity promotions to an unspecified group of people, and the content of the information is authentic and definite and may exert an influence on numerous consumers, an offer is constituted. And if the e-commerce operator is believed to release promotional information prudently as a professional platform, whereupon consumers can rely on such information to a reasonable extent, the offer is determined as irrevocable. Hence, where the e-commerce operator revokes the promotional information in violation of the good faith principle, it should assume compensation liability for any damage to the reasonable reliance interests of consumers incurred therefrom.

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.86968815

[CLI Code] CLI.C.86968815（EN）

二、李某诉某网络交易平台网络购物合同纠纷案

Li. v. An Online Trading Platform （case regarding dispute over online shopping）

【裁判摘要】

在网络购物中，商家对于销售的商品做虚假宣传，足以误导消费者，使消费者做出错误意思表示的，构成欺诈，消费者有权要求商家退货退款并给予原价的三倍赔偿。通常情况下，网络交易平台仅提供网络平台服务，对审查商家的营业执照、产品合格证等材料，尽到合理审查义务的，不具有法律规定的“明知或者应知”情形，可以免责。

[Judgment Abstract]

In cases regarding online shopping, consumers may ask for returning the goods they've bought and a full refund plus an amount of compensation three times the goods price if the seller commits fraud for making false promotions on commodities and misleading consumers. Online trading platforms only provide online platform services under most circumstances. Therefore, they can be exempted from liabilities if they have fulfilled the duty of reasonable examination in verifying the business licenses or compliance certificates of business operators, whereupon they don't fall under the circumstance that “they clearly know or should have known it” as set forth in laws and regulations.

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.74261005

[CLI Code] CLI.C.74261005（EN）

三、张玲娜诉郑楠网络购物合同纠纷案

Zhang Lingna v. Zheng Nan （case regarding dispute over online shopping）

【裁判摘要】

在真实有效的网络购物合同中，双方对所购货物的数量及总价款都没有异议，交易商品涉及到奢侈品真伪的问题，并对消费者造成一定的经济损失时，双方应就自己提出的主张进行举证。如果经营者不能证明其所销售奢侈品的正规进货渠道，消费者又以明显低于市场价值的价格购买所销售的名牌奢侈品的，双方均应对损失承担一定的责任。

[Judgment Abstract]

In a genuine and valid contract for online shopping, where both parties thereto are simply in dispute over the authenticity of the sold luxury goods without raising any objection over the quantity and total price, if any economic losses are consequently incurred to the consumer, either party concerned should bear the burden of proof for their own claims. If the business operator cannot prove that the luxury goods it sells are sourced from regular channels while the consumer buys them at a much lower price than market value, both parties concerned should take some liability for losses incurred as a result.

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.10100931

[CLI Code] CLI.C.10100931（EN）

更多详情请关注我们的海外社交平台，有更多的双语资讯内容等着您！（PS：Facebook和Twitter需要外网访问权限）