Core Viewpoint - Multiple consumers have reported issues with the official Xiaonai mini-program, where they attempted to purchase items priced at 22 yuan but were subsequently denied shipment by the company, raising questions about the brand's reliability and pricing practices [1][9][12]. Group 1: Consumer Complaints - Consumers have complained on social media about their orders being automatically canceled after attempting to purchase various items at the low price of 22 yuan [9][11]. - A consumer reported that after placing an order for several items, including vests and down jackets, they received a notification stating that the items could not be shipped due to a system error [11][12]. - The company sent messages to consumers apologizing for the inconvenience and stating that refunds would be processed promptly [12][15]. Group 2: Company Background - Xiaonai, founded in 2016, offers a range of products including men's underwear, down jackets, and outerwear, with prices ranging from 19 yuan to 1495 yuan [13][15]. - The company operates 66 physical stores across major cities in China, including Shenzhen, Shanghai, and Beijing [13]. Group 3: Legal Perspective - Legal experts suggest that the pricing error could be considered a significant misunderstanding, allowing the company to cancel contracts under the Civil Code [16][18]. - Factors such as the extent of the discount, historical pricing, and the company's corrective actions will be considered in determining whether the pricing error constitutes a significant misunderstanding [17][18].

Core Viewpoint - The case highlights the legal implications of misrepresentation in the sale of used cars, emphasizing the importance of accurate vehicle history disclosure by companies to consumers [2][3]. Group 1: Company Responsibilities - The company assured the buyer that the vehicle had "no accidents," which was interpreted as the vehicle not having any structural damage affecting its safety and normal use [3]. - The company claimed it was unaware of the vehicle's involvement in a fatal accident, arguing that the vehicle was in normal working condition and had no quality issues [2][3]. Group 2: Consumer Rights - The consumer, Mr. Zhang, argued that the vehicle's history of a fatal accident constituted a significant misrepresentation, affecting the vehicle's value and his purchasing decision [2][3]. - The court ruled in favor of the consumer, stating that the misrepresentation led to a significant misunderstanding, justifying the cancellation of the purchase contract and the return of the purchase price of 164,000 yuan [3]. Group 3: Legal Outcome - The court determined that the consumer's understanding of "no accidents" was fundamentally different from the reality of the vehicle's history, which warranted the contract's annulment [3]. - The company was ordered to refund the purchase price and handle the vehicle's registration changes accordingly [3].

Group 1 - A consumer purchased a second-hand car for 164,000 yuan, with the company guaranteeing that the vehicle had no accidents, flooding, or fire damage [1] - After a year, the consumer discovered that the car had been involved in a fatal accident, leading to a lawsuit against the company for misrepresentation and seeking contract cancellation [2] - The court ruled in favor of the consumer, stating that the company failed to conduct a thorough verification of the vehicle's history, which constituted a significant misunderstanding regarding the vehicle's value and safety [3] Group 2 - The court determined that the term "no accidents" should be interpreted as the absence of structural damage affecting normal use and safety, despite the vehicle not being classified as a "damaged car" [3] - The company was ordered to refund the purchase price of 164,000 yuan and assist with the vehicle registration transfer [3]

Core Points - The court ruled to annul the second-hand car sales contract due to a significant misunderstanding regarding the vehicle's battery status [1][2][3] - The buyer, Mr. Yao, purchased an electric vehicle for 178,200 yuan but discovered it did not include a battery, which was a rental option requiring an additional monthly fee [1][2] - The seller, Ms. Wang, claimed she informed the platform about the battery's rental status, but this information was not displayed on the transaction platform [2][3] Summary by Sections - **Contractual Misunderstanding** - The court found that Mr. Yao was misled about the vehicle's battery inclusion, which is a critical component affecting the car's performance and safety [2] - The platform failed to disclose the rental battery information, leading to Mr. Yao's misunderstanding and subsequent contract annulment [2][3] - **Seller's Disclosure Obligations** - Ms. Wang had informed the platform about the battery's rental status, fulfilling her disclosure obligations [2] - The platform's negligence in presenting this information resulted in liability for the contract's annulment [2][3] - **Legal Framework** - The ruling was based on Article 147 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, which allows for the annulment of contracts based on significant misunderstandings [3] - The court emphasized that only substantial misunderstandings affecting the contract's foundation warrant legal significance [3]

Core Viewpoint - The court ruled in favor of the buyer, recognizing a significant misunderstanding in the contract regarding the battery status of a second-hand electric vehicle, leading to the cancellation of the sale contract and the requirement for refunds from both the seller and the platform [1][2]. Group 1: Case Details - Mr. Yao purchased a second-hand electric vehicle for 178,200 yuan but discovered it did not come with a battery, requiring additional rental fees of 1,560 yuan per month [1]. - The seller claimed to have informed the platform about the battery's rental status, but this information was not clearly presented on the transaction webpage [2]. - The court emphasized that the battery is a core component of electric vehicles, and the platform failed to fulfill its duty to ensure that critical information was accurately displayed [2]. Group 2: Court Ruling - The court determined that the contract should be annulled due to the buyer's significant misunderstanding regarding the vehicle's battery status, which is crucial for the vehicle's performance and safety [2]. - The seller was not found to be in breach of contract as she had communicated the battery's rental status to the platform [2]. - The ruling mandated the seller to refund the purchase price to Mr. Yao, while the platform was ordered to return the service fees and compensate for transportation costs [2]. Group 3: Consumer Advice - Consumers are advised to thoroughly understand vehicle information, particularly regarding battery ownership and condition, before making a purchase [3]. - Platforms acting as intermediaries should ensure they fulfill their obligation to verify and accurately present critical transaction information [3].

Core Viewpoint - Recent consumer complaints regarding price discrepancies in the purchase of Stone Technology's sweeping robot during a live stream have raised significant concerns about pricing errors and order cancellations [2][4]. Group 1: Consumer Complaints - Multiple consumers reported that after purchasing the Stone Technology sweeping robot for over 1,000 yuan, their orders were intercepted by the seller due to a "platform price configuration bug," leading to order cancellations and a proposed compensation of 500 yuan [2]. - The prices at which consumers ordered the P20 Ultra model ranged from 1,000 yuan to 1,900 yuan, while the official price after subsidies was stated to be 3,060 yuan, indicating a discrepancy of over 1,000 to 2,000 yuan [4]. Group 2: Legal Perspective - According to legal expert Xiao Jinyang, if a seller marks a product price significantly lower than the market price due to an error, they may invoke "major misunderstanding" to cancel the contract, provided they act promptly to address the issue [4][5]. - The Civil Code of the People's Republic of China allows for the cancellation of civil legal acts based on major misunderstandings, which may apply in this case [5]. Group 3: Historical Context - This incident is not the first controversy involving Stone Technology's sweeping robots related to pricing issues during live streams, as previous complaints arose during the 618 shopping festival, where consumers reported price drops shortly after purchase [5].