Case:
On 20 15 1 year 1 month1day, the plaintiff Gu signed an automobile sales contract with the defendant Sen Fengda Toyota Automobile Sales & Service Co., Ltd., and the contract was filled in: car name "Reiz", car price "25 1800 yuan", and the total amount payable. The column of purchase details reads "one-button start, original factory navigation". On the 8th of that month, the plaintiff paid the money. On the 3rd of the month/KLOC-0, during the delivery process, both parties had a dispute over the vehicle type. The plaintiff believed that the model he chose was Reiz 20 13 2.5V Zunrui Edition, with a guide price of 259,800 yuan and one-button start. However, the defendant thinks that the model purchased by the plaintiff is Reiz 20 13 2.5V Shangrui Navigation Edition, and the guide price is 25 1800 yuan, so it needs to be installed and started without one button. It was told that due to the negligence of the sales staff, the specific model was not specified in the contract, but the model can be determined according to the manufacturer's guide price of "25 1800 yuan" in the contract. Regarding the composition of the payment for 26 1800 yuan, the plaintiff claimed that there was no agreement in the contract and the defendant did not inform it. The defendant explained that the specific structure was: frame 22 1800 yuan, purchase tax 18957 yuan, insurance premium 8609 yuan, service fee 62 10 yuan, and one-button start-up fee 6224 yuan. The defendant also claimed that the car manufacturer's vehicle guidance price is the same, but the seller's preferential treatment for the vehicle is different. The defendant delivered the plaintiff's vehicle with a profit of 30,000 yuan, that is, the manufacturer's guide price was 25 1800 yuan, and the actual sales price was 22 1800 yuan. The plaintiff sued the court for the termination of the contract, and the defendant returned the car purchase price and assumed the corresponding interest loss.
Referee:
After hearing the case, the People's Court of Taicang City, Jiangsu Province held that the defendant in this case, as a car seller, should provide consumers with comprehensive, transparent and clear written terms of the contract, and should make a detailed and detailed statement on the model and price of the subject matter of the contract, so that consumers can make a choice. The handwritten contents of the blank contract involving automobile sales were written by the defendant, but the specific model of the purchased vehicle was not specified, and the important terms related to the subject matter of the contract were not clearly defined. At the same time, the optional column in the automobile sales contract contains two contents: "one-button start, original factory navigation", and there are many choices for specific models to have these two contents. In the case that both parties have different understandings of the terms of the contract, the defendant, as the provider of the standard contract and the writer of the contract, should give an unfavorable explanation. The payable column of the Automobile Sales Contract signed by both parties only indicates the car price of 2,565,438 yuan +0.800 yuan, and the total price of 2,665,438 yuan +0.800 yuan, without clearly indicating the manufacturer's guide price. According to the defendant's statement, there are different levels of profit concessions from car dealers and the specific composition of the vehicle price involved. The price of the vehicle involved in the defendant's actual sales case is not the price stated in the contract, and other expenses included in the total amount are not clearly stipulated in the contract.
In summary, the court decided to support the original application. After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, neither defendant filed an appeal, and the verdict in the first instance has taken legal effect.
Comments:
1. Car sellers have the obligation to inform consumers of vehicle information.
According to Articles 8 and 9 of the Consumer Protection Law, consumers have the right to know and the right to choose independently. Corresponding to this is the seller's obligation to inform information. Among the two parties with asymmetric information, the seller has more product information and is in an advantageous position. Based on the principle of good faith in the contract law and the specific provisions of the consumer protection law, this is the legal obligation of the operator. In the sales contract, the subject matter and price are the core contents of the contract terms. If there is no real agreement between the two parties, the contract foundation will be weak. In this case, the composition of the specific model and total price in the contract is very simple and general, which is directly related to the defendant's irregular and dishonest sales behavior. Moreover, the defendant also admitted that the reason for the unclear contract was the negligence of the sales staff. Judging from the defendant's actual fault and the defects in the form of the contract, he failed to fulfill his reasonable obligation of informing.
2. The automobile seller shall bear the burden of proof on whether he has fulfilled the obligation of informing.
Judging from the jurisprudence and legal requirements of the relationship between rights and obligations, the subject who undertakes a specific obligation in the legal relationship should bear the burden of proof for having fulfilled the obligation. In the process of signing a contract, the operator must inform consumers of relevant information comprehensively and clearly, ensure that the agreement is formed on the premise of openness and transparency, and provide evidence to prove it. From the analysis of the legal basis of risk control theory, the operators who provide standard contracts should bear more legal obligations. Compared with the other party, the party providing the format contract often has more obvious professional advantages, and the corresponding risk control ability and proof ability are also stronger. Therefore, the law sets stricter proof requirements for it, and the examination of its evidence is also stricter. In this regard, Article 26 of the Law on the Protection of Consumers' Rights and Interests stipulates that when operators use standard terms in their business activities, they should draw consumers' attention to the contents that are of great interest to consumers, such as the quantity and quality, price or cost of goods or services, and explain them according to the requirements of consumers. According to the provisions of Article 41 of the Contract Law, if there are more than two interpretations of the standard terms, an interpretation that is unfavorable to the party providing the standard terms shall be made.
3. The form of responsibility that the seller who fails to fulfill the obligation of informing should bear.
Damage to consumers' rights and interests is not based on actual economic losses. As long as the operator's obligation to inform is not fulfilled, the contract purpose of consumers buying a "predetermined" commodity cannot be realized, and the seller's responsibility has already arisen. Therefore, consumers have the right to demand the termination of the contract and return it to both parties, and the operator at fault in contracting shall bear the relevant losses. In addition, according to Article 55 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests, if the operator fails to fulfill the obligation of informing and has reached the suspicion of fraud, the consumer still has the right to claim "one refund and three compensations".