Recently, the Shanghai Songjiang District People's Court (hereinafter referred to as the Songjiang District People's Court) heard a sales contract dispute case caused by the trading social platform "Yangcheng Account".
Ms. Yin is a beauty blogger who has just entered the industry, and she is very anxious to see that the beauty account she runs on a social platform has not improved, and she is eager to enter the field of online marketing. At this time, Ms. Yin accidentally met a legendary "number keeper" - the operator "Shi".
Shi said that he has a platform account that has been "raised" by others in the chain, and the account not only has a considerable number of about 200,000 fans, but also can meet Ms. Yin's needs for "seamless skin change" - "no real name, no violations, product number, no face, and good fan portraits".
Ms. Yin, who was impressed, transferred nearly 90,000 yuan to Shi in four installments according to Shi's **, and then Shi changed the mobile phone number bound to the account to the number specified by Ms. Yin, and Ms. Yin logged in to the account through a verification code to confirm. During the negotiation, Shi reminded Ms. Yin that after the account was purchased, the account name should be changed in time and the original note content should be deleted.
Ms. Yin, who originally planned to use this account to "monetize" for live streaming with goods, was unable to operate due to force majeure during the two months after purchasing the account. During this period, Shi Mou was requested by the "account keeper" to prompt Ms. Yin several times to change the original account avatar and name and delete the original account content, Ms. Yin felt that changing the name immediately would arouse the suspicion of the platform, and wanted to use the account before changing it after she was officially opened.
Unexpectedly, when Ms. Yin logged in to her account again and wanted to show her strength, she only saw an "account closure notice" with the reason that the account was reported by others for "impersonating and handling".
Ms. Yin immediately applied to the platform to unblock the account, but she was unable to provide the appeal materials that met the requirements, and Ms. Yin's negotiation with the whistleblower was also refused. Ms. Yin kept contacting the reseller Shi and asked Shi to solve the problem of banning the account as a ** person. Shi said that the whistleblower did not cooperate with the withdrawal of the complaint, and he could not do anything, and blamed Ms. Yin for not changing the name of the avatar in time according to the prompts.
As a result, Ms. Yin sued Shi to the Songjiang District People's Court, proposing to terminate the sales contract between the two parties and require Shi to return the money for the purchase of the account.
The plaintiff, Ms. Yin, proposed that when purchasing the account, she had confirmed with the defendant Shi whether it met the requirements of "no real name, no violations, product number, no face, and good fan portrait", and the defendant said that it met the requirements, but the account was subsequently blocked due to irregularities, and the defendant's delivery of the account that did not meet the agreement between the two parties was a breach of contract. After the account was sealed, the plaintiff had tried a variety of ways but failed to unseal it, and now the plaintiff's transaction purpose could not be achieved, so it requested that the sales contract be terminated and the defendant should return the purchase price in full.
The defendant argued that the sales contract between the two parties had been established in accordance with the law, and the plaintiff had logged in in time to confirm that there was no problem with the account when the account was delivered, and the defendant had completed the delivery obligation. In addition, the defendant also gave the plaintiff a risk warning on several occasions, requiring the plaintiff to change the content of the account, and fulfilled the obligation of reasonable reminder, and the account was blocked cannot be fully attributed to the defendant, and the plaintiff's negligence in fulfilling its obligations was also the reason for the account being blocked. Even if the contract is terminated, it is hoped that the people's court will reduce or reduce the refund amount as appropriate, taking into account the fact that the account is no longer available.
According to the Shanghai Songjiang District People's Court, Article 615 of the Civil Code stipulates that the seller of a sales contract shall deliver the subject matter in accordance with the agreed quality requirements, and if the seller provides a description of the quality of the subject matter, the delivered subject matter shall meet the quality requirements of the description. Article 617 further stipulates that if the subject matter delivered by the seller does not meet the quality requirements, the buyer may require the seller to bear the liability for breach of contract in accordance with the relevant legal provisions. In short, in the process of performing the sales contract, when one party transfers property to the other party, it should guarantee that the property is free of defects, and if the transferred property is defective, it should bear considerable liability to the other party.
Between Mr. Shi and Ms. Yin, a sales contract relationship was formed for the platform account. In the process of trading, Shi clearly promised that there was no violation of the account bought and sold, but after Ms. Yin logged in to the account, she found that the account was banned. After learning from the platform, it was learned that the reason for the account closure was that others reported that the content of the trading account had "impersonated and moved", and at the same time, the whistleblower provided the same content records posted by himself on another platform account, and the release time was earlier than the platform involved in the case, which can preliminarily prove that the trading account did violate the requirements of the platform. However, Shi has never been able to provide evidence to prove that the ** account is indeed as promised and there are no violations. Because the account violation led to the result of being reported and banned, the fundamental purpose of Ms. Yin's purchase of the account could not be realized, and Shi should bear the corresponding liability for breach of contract.
During the trial of the case, the judge explained the relevant provisions of the Civil Code to both parties in light of the facts of the case, and both parties expressed their willingness to mediate. After mediation presided over by the people's court, in the end, the two parties reached a consensus to terminate the sales contract relationship of the platform account, and Shi returned Ms. Yin more than 60,000 yuan to purchase the account in installments.
The Paper, for more original information, please **"The Paper" app).