It's almost the time for the annual double 11! Are all online shopping experts ready?

Nowadays, Taobao shopping and purchasing on behalf of others have become necessary items in many people's daily life, even become a way to relieve stress. Shopping online, such as Taobao and Jingdong, which have third-party platforms to monitor the security of transactions, we don’t need to worry too much. But as for purchasing on behalf, is really a gambling entirely.

Recently, there were two ladies crazy quarrelling on the Internet because of online shopping, do sure to made each other as honey?

It started when the seller mistakenly sent two bottles of Estee Lauder essences worth about 1,000 yuan to the buyer who had bought lipstick for 100 yuan. Facing this ‘big pie’, the buyer ignored the seller's returning request, deleted the number and blacklisted the seller. after be forced by telephone calls, the buyer contacted the seller again for discussion, indicating that one of the essences had been used. The seller asked the buyer to pay for the bottle, or she would po it online but the buyer was only willing to pay half the price and accused the seller of compulsory consumption.

Compulsory consumption, which is called compulsory transaction in law, refers to the act of forcing others to provide services or forcing others to accept services，which infringes the legitimate rights and interests of the other party and the order of the commodity trading market. If the circumstances are minor, it violates the law on public security administration and punishment. If the circumstances are serious, it even constitutes the crime of forced trading stipulated in the criminal law. In fact, compulsory consumption is common in life, such as being forcibly charged car wash fees which the car was washed unwillingly, door-to-door compulsory sales of goods and tie-in sale car spaces when selling a house etc., are common cases of forced transactions.

So is it true that, as the buyer said, the seller is forcing the transaction？

I don’t think so, and I have three questions: What else do you want to talk about when you have used it? Did the seller force you to use it? Do you think this is a trial sale?

There are two major elements of compulsory transaction: one is the act of coercion, the other is against the will of others. Coercion can be violence or threat. What the seller said about ‘to po the buyer online and start a cyber manhunt’ is undoubtedly a threat to the buyer's privacy and reputation, but is it really against the buyer's will? It can be seen from the buyer's refusal of returning the goods and the account deletion : the buyer really wants the essences! The buyer used a bottle of essence after she discovered that she had got the wrong goods, which shows that it wasn’t against her will, even without trading, she has used it without authorization? Compulsory transaction said: That is really not my business.

In fact, this is just a pie in the sky story, now the owner of the pie comes, then the right to claim for returning property and unjust enrichment so as.

The right to claim for return of property refers to the right of the obligee to claim the return of the original property if someone has no right to possess the realty or chattel. The right of claim can only be exercised if the following three points are met: first, the obligee must be the property owner of the property. In the case of purchase, although the seller sends the wrong goods to the buyer, the ownership of the essence is transferred from the time of delivery according to the contract law, so the seller is undoubtedly the owner of the essence; Second, there must be the fact that others have no right to possess, the buyer has no right to the essence, but arbitrarily withheld, there is a right to possess the fact; Third, the counterpart must be the unauthorized possessor at present. To sum up, the seller is in line with the requirements for the right to return the original goods. She can file a lawsuit against the original court requesting the buyer to return the essence, and she has the right to claim corresponding damages to the buyer for the problem that one of the bottles is not returned because it has been used.

Sellers can not only exercise the right of restitution claim based on real right, but also have a claim called unjust enrichment.

Article 92 of the General Principles of Civil Law stipulates that those who have no legitimate basis for obtaining improper interests and causing losses to others shall return the obtained improper interests to the person who has suffered losses. From the above law, we can see that the debt constituting unjust enrichment needs to meet four conditions: 1)one party gains property interests; 2)one party suffers losses;3)there is a causal relationship between interests and damages; 4)there is no legal basis.

In this case, the buyer refused to return the essence back and gained the price difference benefits between 1000 yuan essence and 100 yuan lipstick, which makes the seller suffered a 900-yuan loss. At the same time, the buyer's act didn’t have any legal basics on sales contracts, gift contracts and so on. In conclusion, it was really an unjust enrichment case, Miss Buyer! When the seller sued the buyer to return the undue profits to the court, the buyer first needs to return the remaining intact bottle of essence and according to the judicial practice, she must return the corresponding market price of the else essence that had been uesd for she was a malicious unjust enrichment person.

There is one point we need to pay attention, according to the law, although the above two rights are legal rights of sellers, but the seller can only choose one to advocate, which should we choose? In fact, the right to claim restitution of restored property and the right to claim for returning property and unjust enrichment have many differences in terms of limitation of action, burden of proof and scope of return. At this time, what we need to do is to consult a lawyer. Lawyers will make the best plan for us according to the specific circumstances of the case~

Many people may think, this incident was caused by the seller’s fault, which the seller should pay for it and bear all the mistakes. However, in the view of the law, this is unfair, no one should bear too much responsibility which is incompatible with his behavior. Although the seller is at fault with the result, but the buyer’s malicious illegal occupation is not allowed by law. Therefore, in the future, these pies that harm others and ourselves, don’t eat!