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]

新京报讯(记者吴梦真)买来的电动汽车却不带电池，买主认为卖家和平台未提供车辆真实信息，要求退 钱退车被拒。新京报记者获悉，近日，北京朝阳法院公开宣判本案，认定姚先生订立合同存在重大误 解，判决撤销二手车买卖合同。 新京报记者了解到，姚先生通过二手交易平台以17.82万元拍得一辆电动汽车，收到车时却发现没有电 池。经过核实，姚先生才知道其购买的车辆是租赁电池版本，姚先生每月要额外支付1560元租赁费，如 果买断电池要再另支付10万元。 姚先生再次搜索交易平台发现，在售的同型号汽车有"电池租赁"或者"电池买断"的标记，且价格相差很 大。向平台工作人员询问，工作人员回复说没听说该品牌有租赁电池。姚先生认为如此重要的车辆信 息，平台未提前核实告知，造成其对交易产生重大误解而订立合同，要求撤销合同并退钱还车。 王女士已向平台告知电池租赁一事，王女士对此不存在违约行为。平台作为居间服务方未向买方披露该 信息，未就有关订立合同的事项如实报告，平台对于合同被撤销存在过错，应承担相应赔偿责任。 最终，法院判决撤销二手车买卖合同，王女士向姚先生退还购车款，姚先生向王女士返还电动汽车，某 汽车服务公司向姚先生退还服务费、赔偿车辆运 ...

来源：北京晚报微信公众号 姚先生通过某二手车交易平台以17.82万元的价格拍得一辆二手新能源汽车，提车后却发现车辆未配备 电池，需额外支付高昂的电池租赁费用。要求退钱还车遭拒后，姚先生将卖家和平台诉至法院。近日， 北京朝阳法院对此案作出判决，认定合同订立存在重大误解，依法撤销合同，卖家和平台需退车并退还 相关费用。 姚先生说，他通过某二手车交易平台参与竞拍，以17.82万元购得一辆二手某品牌新能源汽车。通过平 台签订合同后，姚先生向卖家王女士支付车款8.91万元，向平台支付服务费等共计1.2万余元。 然而收到车后他却发现，车辆未配置电池。经与平台核实，姚先生才得知，所购车辆为租赁电池版本， 每月需额外支付1560元租赁费，若要买断电池还需另付10万元。 姚先生认为，如此重要的车辆信息，平台未提前核实告知，造成他对交易产生重大误解而订立合同，起 诉要求撤销合同并退钱还车。 应诉时，卖家王女士称，她已向平台告知车辆租赁电池情况，不存在隐瞒行为。平台运营方某汽车服务 公司却表示，单独标明电池状态并非行业惯例，且姚先生在买车时未尽注意义务，应自行承担责任。 朝阳法院经审理查明，王女士委托平台售车时向评估师说明了车辆电 ...

对此，南都记者向石头电器旗舰店的客服咨询P20 Ultra平时的价格，对方给出的参考价格是叠加国补后3060元。 比起消费者被退单的价格，差距在一千多元至两千元不等。 价格出现错误，商家能否退单？广东合邦律师事务所律师肖锦阳告诉南都记者，经营者将商品价格标注错误导致 商品单价明显低于市价，且与正常促销活动存在明显差异，构成重大误解；经营者在网络销售平台发布的商品信 息系其向不特定的相对人所作出的单方意思表示，是否存在重大误解情形应结合合同条款、行为的性质和目的、 交易习惯及诚信原则等因素综合予以认定。 肖锦阳表示，"经营者因将商品的价格标注错误导致商品的单价远低于进货价格，或低于同类商品正常售价，而经 营者在销售时并未就商品组织超低价优惠活动，且在发现异常后及时予以下架处理，并通过客服与买方沟通解决 方案。综合以上情形，经营者可以以重大误解为由要求撤销合同。" 根据《中华人民共和国民法典》第一百四十七条，"基于重大误解实施的民事法律行为，行为人有权请求人民法院 或者仲裁机构予以撤销。" 对此，不少消费者并不买账，他们认为应该按其购买价格发货。对此，南都记者给石头科技发去邮件采访，截至 发稿尚未得到回复。 南都 ...