Oolong buy information allegedly released a report listing "Mouwang"

Oolong buy because the publication of information, the public comment network in Wuxi yesterday sued a merchant Sung court.play Princess Games From the press conference Sung court learned that buy network consumption patterns as popular nowadays, because of the particularity of the use of the network platform, the court fixed the existence of evidence, applicable law and other problems in the trial of related cases. The online shopping surge in the number of cases of disputes, the field of consumer rights involved, the way in expanding updates. A "Public comment" to sit in the dock Wuxi goods silent Food Co., said public comment on December 27, 2015, January 11, 2016, the plaintiff in the case without the knowledge of the shop page website published the wrong buy information, causing many consumers mistakenly believe that's located in the first floor of the Plaza, "Ma Ma Hong facet of Chongqing" shop buy promotions consumption. Results consumers can not participate buy buy buy with coupons to the store consumption. Consumers know the truth of the "Ma-Ma Chongqing facet" shop had a serious misunderstanding. The plaintiff sued the Sung court sentence the defendant to request a public apology and compensate the plaintiff economic loss of 20,000 yuan. In the case yesterday Sung Court. Public comment network side that the page displays no impact on the plaintiff, based on the way the consumer to buy, consumers want to buy any consumer, are required to buy in the bar business page, click, and then jumped into the relevant page. Consumers want to buy buy see content, just enter the payment page after buying again.play nail games Information display differ, "a technical error", not deliberately mislead consumers. The plaintiff claimed an apology and financial compensation is excessively high, the lack of factual basis. The case for further proceedings. B Year after year surge in online shopping disputes Sung Vice-President Hongsheng Fu said that from 2012 to 2014, Sung Court online shopping disputes only three. 2015 increased to 31, accounting for 29% of last year the total number of hospital-wide consumer rights cases heard, the target amount of up to 38 million yuan. The proportion of the number of such cases will continue to increase this year. The plaintiff is formed by a third-party network platform for the sale and the relationship between the defendant, the subject focused on consumer goods, mainly related to clothing, food, electronics, health care products, daily necessities, ranging from several hundred dollars to the subject of litigation more than ten million. The outcome of litigation and uncertainty increased, from 2015, concluded 31 cases, the decision has been three, there are 22 mediation withdrawal. The current network information platform for consumer rights exist difficulties. Complex subject of litigation, network transactions involving producers, sellers, network platform provides a variety of body who, logistics service providers and so on. When consumers suffered damage, often buck-passing each subject, causing difficulties consumers choose to prosecute. Consumers difficulties of proof. Because virtual, network performance information network commodity trading transaction data, easy to modify, damage, the operator can always change to promote its information on the page, which has brought great difficulties to consumers the burden of proof. As the network trading commodities underlying amount is relatively small, and online shopping are basically regional,play kids games and ordinary consumers habitually think going to sue the defendant resides, the cost is too high. C Activist reminded: networking platforms may not be Chengbei Gao Sung Court Civil court judge Xiaojun Jie remind consumers shopping in the formal network information platform, you should see the relevant provisions of the law to prosecute a specific defendant. For example, last year, Sheng Mouwang purchased 101 leather bag, show business orders shipped by courier. Order not confirm receipt, logistics information system but the default has uploaded 20 days to complete the order. In fact, the seller marked the wrong price, and the courier company sent an empty package. Sheng believes a network platform constitutes fraud, the prosecution requested network platform refund, treble damages. Sheng failed to adduce evidence to prove a commitment to the network platform is more conducive to the consumer, and ultimately reconciliation and luggage company outside the court. Xiaojun Jie said that the legitimate interests of consumers through online shopping damaged, have the right to require businesses to a separate liability, but also the right to ask online trading platform provider alone for compensation or incidental damages. Consumers generally prosecute Internet trading platform providers require liability, but according to the law, only the network trading platform provider can not provide sales or service providers related information; provide sales or service providers of information but for consumers to make itself a more favorable commitments; online trading platform provider knows or should know the sellers or service providers to use its platform against the legitimate interests of consumers, and did not take the necessary measures to receive support. Otherwise, consumers can only require sellers or service providers liable for damages. In addition, consumers should keep chat records, electronic transfer payment credentials, certificates and other merchandise by mail, through the network screenshots,play hair games videos, and even a notary to obtain evidence. You can also complain to the administrative department to secure the evidence. According to the judicial interpretation of Civil Procedure, under normal circumstances, consumers can sue in their own seat of the Court, in order to save the cost of litigation.