The Effectiveness Of Online Contract Priced Mistakenly

With the rapid development of electronic commerce in recent years, many kinds of web shopping all happen price commodity mistakenly, and when courts handle such cases, often appear different verdict in the same case, and the outcome is hard to satisfy both parties. Investigate it's reason, that is the many controversial points in such cases, there is no specific provision in the existing legislation in our country, and the theory and practice also have many controversy. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to providing some judicial guidance for courts to deal with the mistakenly priced cases by analysis the main issues in this kind of case, and also hope to provide some reference for China's e-commerce legislationThis paper is divided into five parts:The first part,lead to the problem. By mainland joyo case and Chinese Taiwan "UB MALL" and "DELL" cases to analyse the claims of both sides and the court's verdicts, which hence to the problems discussed in this paper,and by analysis these problems and controversy to conclusion own views and opinions.The second part, mainly analysis the price of the contract of the error problem. Analysis the website commodity's information is or not an offer, from this three aspects:the degree of the detail of commodity's information, if there is commodity's inventory on web page, and whether the operators are bound by its intention; From the content of the website auto reply to judge whether the E-mail constitutes an commitment,when the content of the reply is ambiguous,need to make an explanation which benefits consumers;When the website by user agreement formulates that the time of contract concluded is the operator sending the goods, this format term is invalid.The third part, mainly analysis the revocation problem of the established online contract. In practice, operators tend to request to cancel the contract by significant misconception, also by the unconscionability. Only when the operator do a kindhearted administrator's care in subjective,and the pricing error constitutes a "serious misunderstanding" in objective, the operator can cancel the contract by significant misconception; when the price error establishes unconscionability, it needs the consumers who use the operators' behavior in subjective and the rights with obligations are unbalanced between both sides in objective.The fourth part, mainly analysis the reliance of consumer interests after the contract canceled. Because the "contract law" with "general principles of the civil law" rule the legal consequences of invalid behavior and revocable behavior as fault liability, which operators only in the presence of a fault to compensate the reliance of consumer interests, and at this situation, the consumers also have few opportunities to get the compensation for a variety of reasons; When operators are no fault, consumers even exist loss can not get compensation. Therefore, the author calls for legislation to electronic commerce, in which to clearly defined the operators' responsibility and also let consumers can get proper compensation.The fifth part, conclusion and Suggestions.