Man sets 800 automatically jump to 6000 Yuan, ctrip fraud litigation barge-ctrip Hotel-IT information
Zheng said of consumers through ctrip hotel room booking rate is 800 Yuan/night, under a page in his knowledge of "redirecting", forcing senior suite booked a total of 6400 Yuan, 5000 guaranteed gold in the credit card is charged.
He sued on grounds of ctrip constitute fraud Court of Shanghai changning, payment guarantees and guarantees the defendant three times times the compensation and travel expenses, attorney fees, a total of nearly 30,000 yuan. Surging News noted that on May 19 in Shanghai changning court verdict in the case, the Court ordered the ctrip returned Mr 5000 guaranteed gold, Mr CHENG's other appeals are dismissed.
Cheng fang-carrying says "redirecting" impossible
On October 17, 2015, Zheng travel the plaintiff first sea through ctrip mobile reservation "the Eton Hotel Shanghai" room a day, check in for two nights. Mr Cheng said, their operation, mobile booking page shows prices for more than 800 yuan per night, so he filled in the booking information, and provide a credit card authorization as security for staying, but orders submitted later, ctrip sends SMS was told that his book is "superior suites, 1 room 2 night total of 6400 Yuan." Mr Cheng immediately contact the hotel customer service and ctrip, not staying in the suite, and then to another hotel stay.
On October 30, he found 5000 guaranteed gold was deducted on his own credit card, in his view, ctrip company suspected fraud, redirecting through a mobile interface, without the knowledge of his case, attempted to forcibly compel him to stay "superior Suite" in order to grab the High Commission. So he will be prosecuted to the changning hotels with ctrip company courts, restitution of 5000 guaranteed gold on request, asking two defendants jointly to pay 5000 Yuan for the interest on the principal, and pay the lawyer fees of 3000 Yuan, $ 5000 for travel three times times and guarantee compensation for 15000 RMB.
But ctrip company firmly denies, said reservations page automatically jump is unlikely. Through ctrip mobile operations book can be found, each of the reservation steps are shown room types and prices, and the plaintiff filling out credit card information, will display security information such as the amount of 5000 Yuan, the plaintiff cannot want to book a room at more than 800 Yuan/night, after several steps above still failed to find the submitted order is 3200 Yuan/night suite. Two defendants agreed to refund guarantees 5000 Yuan Zheng, but do not think that Mr CHENG's other losses attributable to the defendant, and therefore will not agree.
Approval process without exception
Shanghai changning Court held that defendant contract dispute focused: ctrip company to the plaintiff he reserved a hotel room in the process, compliance with the directive, namely "the Eton Hotel Shanghai, superior Suite" without the knowledge of whether or not the defendant Zheng without reservation?
According to the rules of evidence in civil proceedings, in cases of dispute over contracts, the party advocated the establishment and entry into force of the contract the contract conclusion and entry into force of the facts bear the burden of proof, advocate the contract modification, rescission, termination, withdrawal of one of the parties to contractual relationship changes caused by the fact that bears the burden of proof. However, in the present case, the plaintiff for his idea of ctrip mobile page, in the action automatically during the booking jump, contrary to its command generation advanced orders situation, could not provide any evidence to establish that.
Ning also pay sufficient attention to the Court, Mr CHENG as part of consumers, which have higher difficulty of proof. Based on the principles of fairness and good faith for courts to ctrip mobile reservation "the Eton Hotel Shanghai" process was audited. The audit found that, in the mobile client, the Hotel Home room prices to display one by one, in a list, and have separate reservation button, fill in the staying people click on the room type information such as orders, trailing the same specified order amount, subsequently secured page in a prominent position contained guarantees total payable amount. Therefore, the plaintiff before placing the order, Mr CHENG, have multiple opportunities to check room type and order amount. According to the general common sense, in the case of orders information error, book people should be able to find that and refused to confirm to enter the next step. Changning Court held that plaintiffs ' proposed by Mr CHENG "ctrip company suspected fraud" claims lack factual and legal basis, it is difficult to pick.
Because the two defendants agreed to repay Mr 5000 guaranteed gold, Ning to be allowed by the Court. Mr CHENG's other claims are dismissed.
男子订800元房自动跳转6000元房，诉携程欺诈被驳 - 携程,酒店 - IT资讯
消费者郑先生称自己通过携程网预订房价为800元/晚的酒店房间，网页却在他不知情的情况下“自动跳转”，强制预订了总价6400元的高级套房，导致信用卡内5000元担保金被扣取。
他以携程构成欺诈为由起诉至上海长宁法院，要求被告支付担保金及担保金的三倍赔偿金、差旅费、律师费等共计近3万元。澎湃新闻获悉，此案5月19日在上海长宁法院一审判决，法院判令携程网退还郑先生5000元担保金，郑先生的其他诉请均被驳回。
携程方称“自动跳转”不可能
2015年10月17日，原告郑先生出差至上海，通过携程网手机客户端预订了“上海裕景大饭店”当天的客房一间，入住时间两晚。郑先生称，自己在操作时，手机预订页面显示房价为每晚800多元，于是他就填写了预订信息，并提供信用卡预授权作为入住担保，但提交订单以后，携程网发送的短信却告知他预订的是“高级套房，1间2晚，总价6400元”。郑先生当即与酒店方面以及携程网客服联系，表示不入住该套房，并随后到其他酒店入住。
10月30日，郑先生发现自己信用卡内5000元担保金被扣划，他认为，携程公司涉嫌欺诈，通过手机信息界面自动跳转，在他不知情的情况下，企图强行迫使他入住“高级套房”，以攫取高额佣金。所以他将酒店方与携程公司一并起诉至长宁法院，要求酒店归还5000元担保金，要求两被告共同支付以5000元为本金的利息，并支付律师费3000元、差旅费5000元和担保金的三倍赔偿金15000元。
但携程公司对此予以坚决否认，称预订页面自动跳转是不可能发生的。通过演示携程网手机客户端操作预订可以发现，每个预订步骤都显示房型及房价，并且原告在填写信用卡担保信息时，也会显示担保金额为5000元等信息，原告不可能在想要预订800多元/晚的房间时，经过上述多个步骤仍然未能发现其提交的订单是3200元/晚的高级套房。两被告同意退还郑先生担保金5000元，但认为郑先生主张的其他损失不应归咎于被告方，所以不予同意。
法院审核预订流程未现异常
上海长宁法院认为，原被告双方的争议焦点在于：携程公司在为原告郑先生预订酒店客房的过程中，是否遵从其指令，也就是“上海裕景大饭店高级套房”是否系被告方在郑先生不知情的情况下擅自预订的？
根据民事诉讼证据规则，在合同纠纷案件中，主张合同关系成立并生效的一方当事人对合同订立和生效的事实承担举证责任，主张合同关系变更、解除、终止、撤销的一方当事人对引起合同关系变动的事实承担举证责任。然而在本案中，原告对于他所主张的携程网手机客户端页面在操作预订过程中自动跳转、违背其指令生成了高级套房订单的情形，不能提供任何证据加以证实。
长宁法院也充分注意到，郑先生作为消费者一方，对此进行举证具有较高难度。基于公平及诚实信用原则，法院对携程旅行网手机客户端预订“上海裕景大饭店”的过程进行了审核。经审核发现，手机客户端中，该酒店首页各房型价格以列表方式逐一陈列，并有独立的预订按钮，在点击相应房型填写入住人等信息时，订单尾部同样载明订单金额，嗣后的担保页面也在显著位置载明了应付担保费总金额。因此，原告郑先生在提交订单之前，有多次机会可以核对房型及订单金额。根据一般常理，在订单主要信息出错的情况下，预订人应能及时发觉并拒绝确认进入下一步骤。故长宁法院认为，原告郑先生提出的“携程公司涉嫌欺诈”的主张，缺乏事实及法律依据，难以采信。
由于两被告同意退还郑先生5000元担保金，长宁法院对此予以准许。郑先生的其他诉讼请求均被驳回。