Core Viewpoint - The article discusses a pricing error by Liby, a well-known household cleaning product brand, which led to forced refunds for consumers who purchased products at significantly lower prices than intended. The company acknowledged the mistake and apologized, stating it was due to internal operational oversight [2][11]. Group 1: Incident Overview - On January 22, multiple consumers reported on social media that they were forced to refund purchases made at Liby's official flagship store due to incorrect pricing [2][4]. - A consumer highlighted that a 10 kg pack of Liby laundry detergent was mistakenly priced at 6.9 yuan, while the actual price was around 90.8 yuan [3][6]. - The promotional pricing lasted only about five minutes before the orders were canceled and refunds were issued [4][11]. Group 2: Company Response - Liby's customer service stated that the low pricing led to orders that could not be fulfilled, and they compensated affected consumers with a 5 yuan cash red envelope [11]. - The company attributed the issue to a serious pricing error during a product SKU change and has initiated process upgrades to enhance price verification and multi-level reviews to prevent future occurrences [11][13]. Group 3: Legal and Industry Context - The article notes that similar pricing errors have caused public relations issues for other brands, such as Jie Rou and Miniso, which faced backlash for incorrect pricing [15]. - Legal expert Kong Yunfei mentioned that under the Civil Code, contracts based on significant misunderstandings, such as erroneous pricing, can be rescinded, indicating the potential legal implications for Liby [15][16].

Core Viewpoint - The company faced backlash from consumers due to a pricing error that led to forced refunds for products purchased at significantly lower prices than intended [1][2][6]. Group 1: Incident Details - Multiple consumers reported that they were forced to refund purchases of laundry detergent from the company's official flagship store, where a 10 kg pack was mistakenly priced at 6.9 yuan instead of the original price of 90.8 yuan [2][4]. - The pricing error occurred during a brief promotional event that lasted approximately five minutes, leading to numerous complaints on social media [3][6]. - The company acknowledged the issue was due to an internal operational oversight during the SKU change process, which resulted in abnormal orders [6]. Group 2: Company Response - The company issued an apology and provided a 5 yuan cash compensation to affected consumers, citing the pricing error as the reason for the refunds [1][6]. - The company has initiated a process upgrade to enhance price verification and implement multi-level reviews to prevent similar issues in the future [6]. - The company expressed gratitude for media and user oversight and committed to improving service quality [6]. Group 3: Company Background - The company, established in 1994, is a leading player in the daily chemical industry, with a reported annual revenue of 31.241 billion yuan in 2022, reflecting a year-on-year growth of 2.13% [6]. - The company’s product range includes fabric care, dish cleaning, oral care, and personal care items [6].

Core Viewpoint - The case highlights the importance of transparency in the second-hand electric vehicle market, particularly regarding battery ownership and rental agreements, as the court ruled in favor of the buyer due to a significant misunderstanding about the vehicle's battery status [1][3][5]. Group 1: Case Details - A buyer, Mr. Yao, purchased an electric vehicle for 178,200 yuan but later discovered it did not come with a battery, which was a rental option requiring an additional monthly fee of 1,560 yuan [1]. - The seller, Ms. Wang, claimed she informed the platform about the battery rental status, but the platform denied this knowledge, leading to a dispute [2]. - The court found that the platform failed to disclose critical information regarding the battery rental status, which constituted a breach of duty [3][5]. Group 2: Court Ruling - The court ruled to annul the contract, stating that the battery is a core component of electric vehicles, affecting performance and safety, and the platform had a duty to ensure accurate information was provided [3][6]. - The ruling mandated that Ms. Wang refund Mr. Yao the purchase price, while the platform was ordered to return service fees and cover transportation costs [5]. - The judgment emphasized the obligation of both sellers and platforms to disclose essential vehicle information, particularly regarding battery conditions [6][8]. Group 3: Legal Implications - The case underscores the legal principle that contracts can be annulled due to significant misunderstandings, particularly when critical information is not disclosed [6]. - The ruling serves as a reminder for buyers to thoroughly understand vehicle conditions and for platforms to accurately present vehicle information to prevent disputes [8].