Where network suspected of complicity in hotels and consumer, freezing all GroupOn coupons had been charged-where to go, buy-IT information
In the "where to network" on purchases of more than 10,000 copies of hotel vouchers were frozen, 5 consumers such as Chiang Kai-shek "where network" together with hoteliers to court, requiring continued buying. Yesterday, reporters learned that Jiang an, Haidian court verdict set aside 4 consumers and "where to network" GroupOn coupons sale contract, on the grounds that if a group of 18 stamps purchased services, will result in both parties treat payment benefits and serious inequalities. Another court verdict had yet been made. After the judgment of 4 consumers dissatisfied with Chiang Kai-shek, filed an appeal to the municipal court.
Consumers
Low price buy tickets are frozen
It is understood that Jiang 5 consumers such as a separate access to the courts. Integrated 5-person prosecuted, in November 2014, "where network" publishing group news, buying goods for Wuxi "7 days Inn central station, shops of traditional stay 1 night in a double room", a 09 percent discount, buy price was 18 Yuan. 5 people purchased the group purchase goods at 11,300.
Shortly afterwards, "where network" unilaterally froze all GroupOn coupons, and without the consent of 5 single refund. Then, Jiang respectively for 5 consumers one to court, asking the Court to award "where network" and the hotel continues to execute buy according to buying information website.
"Where to network"
Suspected Hotel collude with consumers
When the Court of first instance, "where network", where networks and 7 days Inn has a separate formulas that run automatically by the system, the day of the incident, "where network" staff mistake should have been marked wrong for 109 the cost price 7 Yuan, then the system automatically generate a group price is only 18 Yuan.
"Where to network," said that after the incident, the hotel 7 days do not agree with "where to network" settled by 7 Yuan, 109 settled in accordance with the cost price. After repeated communication on both sides, "where network" to the original cost price of 109 and 7 day clearing part of GroupOn coupons.
Also, "to where network" said, Jiang a, 5 per capita is purchase day new registered of "to where network" user, purchase buy coupons of time paragraph is same of, and according to "to where network" User Center background management system of records, Jiang a, people login "to where network" of IP address is "7 days chain Hotel Central station shop" hotel of IP address. Therefore, "where network" individuals believe that buying tickets and hotels have maliciously and aims to profit by interest.
"Where network" believes that companies with 5 people such as Chiang Ching-kuo on the 11,300 hotel vouchers in reaching network services contract, fraud and serious misunderstanding, contract and contents violate free will, fundamental principles of making compensation, good faith, fairness. If you continue to perform the contract, would cause huge economic losses to the company. Therefore, Jiang and others, requests the Court to dismiss the lawsuit and counterclaim, petition the Court for cancellation of 11,300 network group contracts Hotel vouchers.
The judgment of first instance
Be contrary to the principle of fairness do not adhere
In the course of the case, Jiang said, "where net" target 18 on the site was a sign of its true meaning, is a normal marketing plan is not "where net" losses, also submitted a certificate proves the price of 18 Yuan for the general price of similar hotels in the same period. "Where network" were of the view that notary involved in the hotel and the hotel 7 days are not the same type, there is no comparability.
Haidian District Court concluded that "where network" means untrue, and if a group of 18 stamps purchased services, will result in the serious inequality of benefits and service contract, which does not go against the principle of fairness. In addition, the Court noted that, in connection with the hotel chain 7 days prices were above 100 Yuan, although a Chiang Ching-kuo, who also served time on hotels to be notarized, but the hotel 7 days hotel chain involved is not of the same type, and even facilities that crummy hotel, at least 29.
Therefore, the Haidian District court verdict set aside a 4 person with Chiang Ching-kuo, "where net" network contract on the hotel vouchers, dismissed a 4 people as well as Chiang Ching-kuo "where network" of other claims. It is understood that another consumer litigation, the Court has not yet reached a verdict.
After the verdict, 4 consumers dissatisfied with Chiang Kai-shek, filed an appeal to the municipal court. The Court will soon be hearing the case.
去哪儿网怀疑酒店和消费者串通，冻结万份团购券遭起诉 - 去哪儿,团购 - IT资讯
因在“去哪儿网”上购买的1万余份酒店团购券被冻结，蒋某等5名消费者将“去哪儿网”和酒店经营者一同诉至法院，要求继续履行团购。昨天记者获悉，海淀法院一审判决撤销蒋某等4名消费者与“去哪儿网”达成的团购券买卖合同，理由是如果以18元的团购券购得服务，将造成合同双方给付与对待给付的严重不对等。另一诉讼法院尚未作出一审判决。判决后，蒋某等4名消费者不服，向市一中院提起上诉。
消费者
万份低价团购券被冻结
据了解，蒋某等5名消费者是分别向法院提起诉讼的。综合5人的起诉内容，2014年11月，“去哪儿网”发布团购消息，团购商品为无锡“7天连锁酒店中央车站店传统双人房入住1晚”，折扣为0.9折，团购价格为18元。5人总共购买了该团购商品11300份。
随后不久，“去哪儿网”单方冻结了全部团购券，且未经5人同意单方退款。于是，蒋某等5名消费者分别诉至法院，请求法院判令“去哪儿网”与酒店继续按照网站发布的团购信息履行团购事宜。
“去哪儿网”
怀疑酒店与消费者串通
一审开庭时，“去哪儿网”表示，去哪儿网与7天酒店有一套由系统自动运行的分账公式，事发当天，“去哪儿网”员工错将原本应为109元的成本价错标为7元，因随后系统自动生成团购价仅为18元。
“去哪儿网”表示，事发后，7天酒店不同意“去哪儿网”按7元进行结算，要求按照成本价109元进行结算。双方经多次沟通，“去哪儿网”以原成本价109元与7天结算了部分团购券。
此外，“去哪儿网”表示，蒋某等5人均是购买当天新注册的“去哪儿网”用户，购买团购券的时间段也是相同的，且根据“去哪儿网”用户中心后台管理系统的记录，蒋某等人登录“去哪儿网”的IP地址就是“7天连锁酒店中央车站店”酒店的IP地址。因此，“去哪儿网”认为购买团购券的个人与酒店有恶意串通，目的是赚取差额利益。
“去哪儿网”认为，公司与蒋某等5人就11300份酒店团购券达成网络服务合同过程中，存在欺诈和重大误解，合同的订立及内容有违自愿、等价有偿、诚实信用、公平等基本原则。如果继续履行合同，会给公司造成巨额经济损失。因此，请求法院驳回蒋某等人的诉讼请求，并提出反诉，请求法院判决撤销就11300份酒店团购券达成的网络团购合同。
一审判决
有违公平原则不予履行
此案审理过程中，蒋某等消费者表示，“去哪儿网”网站上标的18元是其真实意思的表示，是正常营销计划，未对“去哪儿网”造成损失，还提交了公证书证明18元的价格为同类酒店同时期的普遍价格。而“去哪儿网”则认为，公证书中所涉及的酒店与7天酒店并非同一类型，没有可比性。
海淀法院审理后认为，“去哪儿网”意思表示不真实，且如果以18元的团购券购得服务，将造成合同双方给付与服务的严重不对等，这种不对等有违公平原则。此外，法院指出，涉案7天连锁酒店的价格均在100元以上，尽管蒋某等人也对同时期的酒店价格进行公证，但所涉酒店与涉案7天连锁酒店并非同一类型，而且即使设施较为简陋的旅馆，亦至少需要29元。
因此，海淀法院一审判决撤销蒋某等4人与“去哪儿网”就酒店团购券达成的网络买卖合同，驳回蒋某等4人以及“去哪儿网”的其他诉讼请求。据了解，另一名消费者的诉讼，法院尚未作出一审判决。
一审判决后，蒋某等4名消费者不服，向市一中院提起上诉。法院将于近日开庭审理此案。