Comment: Third Party Selling, What Is The Responsibility Of The Electricity Supplier?

< p > July 28th, media reports said: "Xiang Peng Heng Ye" sells fake clothing and watches through many electronic business platforms such as jumei.com, while jumei.com and other electronic business platforms have turned a deaf ear to this.

< /p >

< p > jumei.com is a listed company on the New York stock exchange of the United States. The sale scandal has great influence on the electricity supplier.

After that, jumei.com issued a statement that it admitted that "Xiang Peng Heng Ye" had a selling and selling behavior. It said that it had shut down its a href= "http:// www.sjfzxm.com/news/index_c.asp" > online shop < /a >, but it had "committed to light up and fell" on its own responsibility, and did not promise consumers who were "beforehand compensate" but only "deep introspection and accountability".

< /p >

< p > for the third party selling on the electronic business platform, what responsibility should the electric power platform assume? Before the revision of the consumer rights protection law in the second half of last year, there was some controversy about whether the electronic business platform should be "paid in advance".

There is a view that the electronic business platform and the "exhibition" and "rental counters" the same nature, so we should first compensate.

But in the end, "consumer law" lawmakers believe that: the electricity supplier has neither the right to require the shop to pay the deposit in advance, nor does it have the ability to examine the specific operators through inspection, audit qualification and so on. If we take the "one size fits all" approach to the online consumer disputes, it may aggravate the operating cost of < a href = "http:// www.sjfzxm.com/news/index_c.asp" > the "electricity supplier < /a > platform", and stifle Internet business innovation.

< /p >

< p > the existing principles of consumer law are: first, the seller or the server should be held responsible; but if the electronic commerce platform can not provide the seller's real name, address and effective contact mode, consumers can also claim compensation from the electricity supplier platform; if the electronic business platform makes a promise that is more conducive to consumers, it should fulfill its promise.

In this case, if polyemin can provide the real name and contact method of "Xiang Peng Heng Ye", it will not be liable for compensation.

< /p >

< p > but this is not absolute.

The current < < a href= > http:// > www.sjfzxm.com/news/index_c.asp > > < < /a > > also stipulates that if the electronic business platform "knowingly" or "should know" the sellers who use their platforms to infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of consumers and take the necessary measures, they shall be jointly and severally liable.

< /p >

< p > the new "elimination method" can be described as "ten years of grinding a sword and no frost blade has been tried". Although the layers of responsibility for the electronic commerce platform have been determined in jurisprudence, it still needs judicial practice to activate it. Especially, how to define the business platform "knowingly" or "should know" the third party selling the holiday and not doing it? This requires the court to combine the specific case with the judgment to release the law.

< /p >

< p > there are reports that a number of famous cosmetic brands including Estee Lauder, Lancome and DHC have denied any form of cooperation with jumei.com.

As a matter of fact, jumei.com is itself a professional online shopping website for cosmetics. It is impossible not to know that these brands deny cooperation with them and their third party network operators. Is this "poly" or "should know" someone is using their electronic business platform to sell the holiday and not to act as a consumer, so that they have to bear the liability of compensation for consumers? < /p >

< p > the Internet may "overturn" a lot of business rules, but it can not "subvert" the basic business ethics.

< /p >