本文转自【宁波晚报】； 近日，广西政法发布了一起二手车交易引发的案件。2022年3月，张某以4.8万元向荔浦某汽车公司购买 了一辆二手车，合同约定车辆无大事故、水泡、火烧，且注明买方知晓车况。但实际上，该车在2018年 曾发生致人死亡事故，虽无实质性、结构性损坏，之后已易手历经过3任车主，但张某并未获悉这一信 息。 2025年8月，张某之子将车进行年检时，才发现该车发生过致人死亡的交通事故，张某父子认为商家隐 瞒了车辆发生过的大事故，向法院起诉请求撤销合同、退全款并支付违约金。二手车交易公司辩称交易 前检验正常，无欺诈，且买家撤销权已超过法定期限，拒绝退款。 法院审理认定，该车虽非行业标准认定的事故车，但商家未尽到全面细致的核验义务，导致向张某提供 的车辆信息不完整。从消费者角度而言，车辆曾"致人死亡"的事实，与张某对车辆"无事故"的认知存在 重大偏差，且该事实足以影响车辆价值及购买决策。因此，买家张某签订合同的行为构成重大误解，符 合撤销合同的法定条件，且撤销权起算日应为买家2025年8月得知车辆发生过致人死亡事故的当日，因 此并未超过90天的法定期限。荔浦市法院作出一审判决：撤销张某与汽车公司签订的车辆交 ...

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that under the Civil Code, contracts based on significant misunderstandings, such as erroneous pricing, can be rescinded, indicating the potential legal implications for Liby [15][16].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].