本报讯 1月3日，海口市民王女士在某平台刷到一场带货直播，主播称"149元即可购买15只1-3斤重的成 品活鸡"，极具诱惑力的价格让她果断下单。然而收到货后，王女士发现商家发过来的竟是一群小鸡 仔，与直播间宣传严重不符。王女士昨日拨打本报热线反映，尽管最终通过平台成功退款，但次日全部 死亡的小鸡仔仍让她气愤不已，更让她起疑的是，商家声称"广州发货"，经查询物流轨迹显示发货地为 海南澄迈。记者 苏钟 文/图 多位消费者在评论区留言反映被骗："158元买了15只'2斤重活鸡'，收到的是刚破壳的雏鸡"，"主播说的 是成品鸡，发货的却是需要养半年才能出栏的小鸡仔"，"联系商家被拉黑，平台只给退款，损失没人 管"。 律师说法：涉事商家构成消费欺诈 海南道哲律师事务所律师徐宁告诉记者，涉事商家的行为构成欺诈，应承担"退一赔三"的惩罚性赔偿责 任。商家在直播中宣称销售"1-3斤重的活鸡"，实际发货却为"雏鸡"，同时虚构"广州发货"信息，属于故 意告知虚假情况或隐瞒真实情况，诱使消费者作出错误购买决定。该行为完全符合《消费者权益保护 法》第五十五条关于"欺诈"行为的认定。消费者有权要求商家"退一赔三"，即退还货款并增加赔偿购 ...

Core Points - The incident involving Damai.net's ticket sales for Lu Han's concert has sparked significant consumer dissatisfaction due to a scheduling error that led to the cancellation of ticket purchases [1] - Consumers who successfully purchased tickets received confirmation but later had their orders revoked, leading to claims of breach of contract against Damai.net [1] - The legal interpretation suggests that once a consumer successfully places an order and makes payment, a contract is established, and unilateral cancellation by the seller constitutes a breach [2] Group 1 - Damai.net's error in ticket sales for Lu Han's concert resulted in a public apology and a refund policy that included a 3% discount coupon for affected consumers [1] - Many consumers expressed their grievances on complaint platforms, highlighting the financial implications of the cancellation, including non-refundable travel expenses [1] - Legal expert Chen Yinjian clarified that if the error was unintentional, it may not qualify as fraud, which is necessary for consumers to claim triple compensation [2] Group 2 - According to the E-commerce Law, once a consumer submits an order and payment is made, the contract is binding, and the seller cannot unilaterally cancel it [2] - If the seller cannot fulfill the contract, they are obligated to refund and compensate for any losses incurred by the consumer, such as travel arrangements [2] - The conditions for claiming triple compensation require evidence of intentional fraud, which may not apply in this case as the error was attributed to staff mismanagement [2]