The Legal Remedy Of Pricing Error Of Online Shopping

The research production of this article is that, by stating and demonstrating theconstitutive elements of contract, significant misconception and unconscionablity inthe revocable acts, and the compensation liability of damages after revoking contractwith error, solves a series of contentious questions on pricing error of online shopping.The view which formed in this article will be benefit for perfecting the contract lawsystem and establish the electronic commerce law system. More primarily, which isthis article’s original intention, is to provide suggestions of judicial instruction ononline shopping disputes which often happen in our modern society, which will makeno matter business operators or consumers get a better legal relief when encounteringsuch problems.This article is divided into six parts:Part1is cases and problems which raise. It introduces Dangdang website pricingerror case happened in Chinese mainland and Dell case happened in Taiwan. Afterstating the claims of both sides and the verdict contents of courts, this part draws forththe problems which will be solved in part2to5.Part2is the establishment of the online shopping contract. A contract isestablished by an offer and a promise, so what the online shopping contract’s offerand promise specifically refer to is a focus of the discussion. The nature of shoppingwebpage should not be defined blindly as an offer or an invitation but decidingwhether it is qualified for the constitutive elements of offer. For the current laws haveno specific provisions, the trading terms should be taken effect on the online shoppingcontract as the standard terms. In practice, there are lots of disputes on the nature ofthe confirmation letter of order which the online shopping website sends. No lawsclaim that the paying act of consumers is subsequent after the establishment of thecontract, so the establishment of the contract is decided by the trading terms, ratherthan paying.Part3is the applicable conditions of the contract which is revoked because ofpricing error. Business operators can revoke the contract of pricing error on groundsof significant misconception. Courts consider all things about pricing error. If pricepromotion appears on the online shopping webpage, courts should decide it assignificant misconception cautiously. In addition, the great loss of business operators should be considered, which has huge gap between market and webpage prices. Thestate of mind characterized by intent and gross negligence is excluded.Part4is the legal consequence of revoking contracts with pricing error. Thecompensation liability for damages should be identified as reliance liability. It is bestto make some unified and explicit regulations for the compensation liability ofbusiness operators in the approaching electronic business laws, which could catchtheir cautious attention and compensate for customers’ damages of reliance.Part5is the possibility of applying the reason which is unconscionability.Business operators could revoke the contract of pricing error on grounds ofunconscionablity if the subject and object elements are coexisting which qualified theconstitutive elements of unconscionablity. As it is also qualified for significantmisconception, business operators can choose between the two. In practice, as a resultof that there are disputes on the constitutive elements of unconscionablity, businesscustomers usually choose significant misconception to get the relief of rights whichreflecting pricing error directly.Part6is a conclusion of this article which summarize the problems above.