Man app for someone to purchase BMW Motorcycle, was lying to 118,000 yuan-micro, motorcycles, BMW, purchasing-IT information

At present, micro-micro-circle of friends, group purchasing as a representative of "micro-businesses" are very popular. Those purchasing identity, are friends or friends of friends, a lot of people meet in the convenient and buy imported goods at low prices, but this business model is respected. But if the dispute by purchasing goods, particularly large-value commodity purchasing problems, and how the rights of it? Recently, luyang district, Hefei city people's Court is the corrected cases caused by micro-purchase, but the defendant did not appear.

In 2015, who lives in Hefei Zhu joined one of the groups, through friends met with Yang in the group. In the group chat, and that Yang had repeatedly helped another friend in the group, with prices lower than the market price had successfully purchased imported motorcycles.

? Frame-independent

Based on a friend's trust, and in July of the same year, a contact Yang Zhu, asked for help from Japan purchase BMW motorcycle. Then, Zhu a points times has through paid treasure transfers, and bank transfers and cash face to face delivered, way, to Dr a paid has purchasing paragraph 118,000 yuan, Dr a to Zhu a issued receipt a Zhang, contains Ming received Zhu a 118,000 yuan for purchase Japan BMW Motorcycle, and agreed purchase cycle for four months within (July 1, 2015 to November 1, 2015), if failed to by agreed time make car, Dr a will returned all amount and bear all legal responsibility.

Instant purchase term has been agreed, Zhu and confiscating motorbikes, Yang said the car was cheated and no ability to repay a Chu. Subsequently, Yang Zhu repeatedly found negotiations, Yang returned to car things have dragged, and do not want to alarm on the car he had been deceived. Zhu believe that Yang did not purchase for motorcycles instead of cars diverted to other uses.

In January 2016, Chu Yang to court.

Recently, luyang District Court hearing the case, according to law by the courts summoned Yang does not appear, the Court conducted a hearing in accordance with law. Zhu Mou is in court the plaintiff took out, PayPal transaction receipt capture, Bank water shots, defendant's Yang photocopies as proof that the accused Yang of default shall return the car.

Luyang District Court through the trial, believes that a delegate Yang Zhu purchased the motorcycle on its behalf, the two sides have formed a trust relationship. Yang is not completed according to the delegate, in accordance with the law and both parties agree, the Court ruled Yang Zhu in a return car to 118,000 yuan.

Case hosted judge Kong Jing said, current micro-letter, form of network purchasing in to public brings convenience of while, also brings many shopping risk, relative Yu line Xia trading, exists with sellers identity to determine, and purchasing commodity authenticity difficult differentiation, and trading process missing regulatory, problem, to this case for cases, in delegate others purchasing Shi best clear purchasing people of identity information and properly custody good purchasing Shi of documents proved, and purchase process in the of trading records, information, to appeared disputes Shi can resorted to legal way activist.

男子微信找人代购宝马摩托车，被骗11.8万元 - 微信,摩托车,宝马,代购 - IT资讯

时下，以微信朋友圈、微信群代购为代表的“微信商业”十分流行。这些代购的身份，多是好友或是朋友的朋友，不少人满足于能便捷、低价购得进口商品，而对此商业模式十分推崇。但是如果因代购商品而发生纠纷，特别是大额的商品代购出现问题，又该如何维权呢？近日，合肥市庐阳区人民法院审理了一起因微信代购而引发的纠纷纷案件，而被告人却并未现身。

2015年，家住合肥的朱某加入了一个微信群，通过朋友认识了同在群中的杨某。在微信群的聊天中，朱某得知杨某曾多次帮助群中的其他朋友，以比市价低的价格成功购买过进口摩托车。

▲图文无关

基于对朋友的信任，同年的7月，朱某联系杨某，要求帮忙从日本代购宝马摩托车。随后，朱某分多次先后通过支付宝转账、银行转账和现金当面交付等方式，向杨某支付了代购款11.8万元，杨某向朱某出具收条一张，载明收到朱某11.8万元用于购买日本宝马摩托车，并约定购买周期为四个月内(2015年7月1日到2015年11月1日)，如果未能按约定时间交车，杨某将退还全部金额并承担一切法律责任。

转眼约定的购买期限已过，朱某并没收到摩托车，杨某称购车款被人骗了并且暂无能力偿还朱某。随后，朱某多次找到杨某交涉，杨某对退还车款之事一拖再拖，并且不愿意就车款被骗一事报警。朱某认为杨某根本没有为其代购摩托车，而是将车款挪作他用。

2016年1月，朱某将杨某诉至法院。

近日，庐阳法院开庭审理了此案，经法院依法传唤，杨某并未到庭，法院依法进行了缺席审理。原告朱某当庭拿出收条、支付宝交易截图、银行流水截图、被告杨某身份证复印件等作为证据，证明被告杨某违约应当退还购车款。

庐阳区法院经审理认为，朱某委托杨某代其购买摩托车，双方已经形成了委托关系。因杨某未依约完成委托事务，依据法律规定和双方约定，法院判决杨某向朱某返还购车款11.8万元。

案件承办法官孔静表示，当前微信等形式的网络代购在给市民带来便利的同时，也带来很多购物风险，相对于线下交易，存在着卖家身份难以确定、代购商品真伪难辨、交易过程缺少监管等问题，以本案为例，在委托他人代购时最好清楚代购人的身份信息并妥善保管好代购时的单据证明、购买过程中的交易记录等信息，以便出现纠纷时可以诉诸法律途径维权。