The development of information technology has brought a lot of convenience to our daily life, but at the same time, many "hand slippery" and "dazzling" stories also occur from time to time - "Ah! I filled in the wrong number".
Oh, my God! I transferred my money to the wrong person! ”…
When this happens, how should we deal with it?
Details of the case
On September 16, 2022, Yuan purchased a "gift box" worth 500 yuan that could be used for an online game on the ** platform of Network Company A. Because the "gift box" is carried out by the seller on the platform of Network Company A in the form of "consignment transaction", the customer service staff of Network Company A needs to log in to the game to help the seller complete the delivery. The number of "gift boxes" worth 500 yuan purchased by Yuan was 606, but due to customer service errors, 60,660 were actually shipped to Yuan. Subsequently, Yuan promptly informed A Network Company, but the negotiation between the two parties failed.
The court found that after the customer service operation error, A network company compensated the seller for the loss of 49,000 yuan. Since the "gift box" in the online game could not be returned in the original way, Yuan also rejected Network Company A's handling plan of "authorizing Yuan to open the 'gift box' involved in the case by live broadcasting to Network Company A, and Network Company A is willing to accept all the materials or equipment involved in the case after the 'gift box' is opened" on the grounds that "his game account has been transferred to a friend for use, Yuan himself cannot log in to the account, and the 'gift box' involved in the case has been opened by a friend".
Heard by the courts
After trial, the court held that although the "gift box" involved in the case had no physical carrier, it had a corresponding consideration in the transaction, could be used in the game, had a certain use value and economic value, and belonged to the goods consigned by the seller, so Network Company A compensated the seller 49,000 yuan according to the sales value of the "gift box" on the platform of Network Company A, resulting in the corresponding economic losses suffered by Network Company A. Based on this, it can be confirmed that there is a causal relationship between the corresponding economic losses suffered by Network Company A and Yuan's gains, Yuan's conduct constitutes unjust enrichment, and Network Company A has the right to claim unjust enrichment against Yuan. Yuan did not cooperate with a certain network company to recover its losses, and his conduct objectively made it impossible for A network company to obtain the equipment and materials in the "gift box" that was sent more than the one involved in the case. In the end, the court ruled that Yuan would return the extra "gift box" according to the discount on the day of acquisition.
Links to legal provisions
Article 985 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China
Where the gainer obtains improper benefits without a legal basis, the person who suffers the loss may request the gainer to return the benefits obtained, except in any of the following circumstances: (1) payment for the performance of a moral obligation; (2) the repayment of debts before they become due; (3) Repayment of debts knowing that there is no obligation to pay.
Article 987 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China
Where the gainer knows or should know that the benefits obtained have no legal basis, the person who suffers losses may request the gainers to return the benefits they have obtained and compensate for the losses in accordance with law.
There are four conditions that should be met to constitute unjust enrichment:1The beneficiary must have an interest in the property; 2.must cause damage to others as a result of unjust enrichment; 3.There is a causal link between the benefit of the gainer and the injury of the victim; 4.There is no legal basis for the gainer to obtain a benefit. Common unjust enrichment, such as over-delivery and over-receipt of goods at the time of sale, finding lost property as one's own, incorrect amount of remittance or operation error remittance to the wrong account, etc. It can be seen that unjust enrichment should be caused by the victim's error, misunderstanding or negligence.
The judge hereby reminds the majority of netizens that unjust enrichment is not a catch-all clause for suing when the evidence is insufficient or because the legal relationship cannot be clarified through other litigation channels. If you abuse unjust enrichment, not only will you fail to achieve the purpose of the lawsuit, but you will also have other unnecessary losses, and the gains outweigh the losses!
*: Qianjiang Municipal Bureau of Justice.