Profit, but also consider word of mouth.
If we only consider the profit, the matter of corn in Northeast China will not be so hotly discussed and talked about a few days ago, which will make people whole.
The platform took the corn off the shelf, which shows that word of mouth is also very important.
The same is true of this matter. Before that, Chow Tai Fook in my eyes was a well-known brand in the jewelry industry. If I buy their jewelry,
Put it on and go out. That's a great honor.
But this thing in the title, Chow Tai Fook is petty.
You admit it's your fault, but you don't want to pay for your own mistakes, and you don't want consumers to get any benefits from it, even if it's a system error.
If this feeling is conveyed to consumers, then the loss of this brand is much greater than that of other brands and businesses, which have been trying to let consumers see that they are buying the feeling of earning. Chow Tai Fook's operation is somewhat counter-intuitive, and I really can't understand it.
Finally, let's imagine that if Chow Tai Fook made a mistake this time and continued to perform the transaction, what would the public opinion be like if it was exposed by the media? The only impression left by this transaction is that Chow Tai Fook accidentally sold it cheaply, so he can go to Gu Sue.
The guest wants his things back.
Then the situation is reversed: if the couple buy at a higher price without knowing that Chow Tai Fook has an implicit discount,
Will Chow Tai Fook refund the price difference of a commodity?
Certainly not, not only that, but also throw a set of similar ones that I didn't see. Why should the store bear it? As adults, we should learn to be responsible for our actions. ?
Leaving the cabinet is not only responsible for customers, but only for civilians unless necessary. Some rules seem to be made for the bottom. The court's decision is also very interesting. Chow Tai Fook Company did not deliberately forge price tags to defraud consumers, and Mr. and Mrs. Wang failed to provide corresponding evidence to prove that the plaintiff had low-price promotion, so the sales behavior was invalid.
So customers have to obtain evidence in advance to buy discounted goods in the future? Does that mean that if the customer can't prove that the business has a promotion line?
So, can the merchant unilaterally refuse to recognize the transaction?
It seems that the judge has a complete set of legal procedures when buying cheap goods or picking up leaks at home, and refuses to buy them without evidence, or
His home has always been purchased at or above the original price to ensure that the profits of the merchants will not be lost.
Chow Tai Fook could have used 250,000 yuan to do a perfect contract-abiding marketing for itself, but the nature of haggling over every penny made it choose the platoon at the first time.
The self-production and marketing of the venting process makes people call "can't afford to play".
I can't provoke Chow Tai Fook, and the power of legal interpretation is not in my hands, so I can only choose not to go to Chow Tai Fook, but I am not afraid to buy fakes.
I'm afraid it was too cheap, and Chow Tai Fook was not satisfied.
It seems that everyone is a little unhappy with Chow Tai Fook, and so am I. Obviously, as a consumer, I support Chow Tai Fook without any fault.
Business, why was the final sale cancelled by the court?
And what many people don't know is that according to the court's judgment, this lawsuit is considered to be lost by consumers, and consumers have to bear the consequences of losing the case.
If the legal expenses should be borne by consumers.
From a purely legal point of view, there is no problem with the court's decision. However, from the perspective of corporate image, Chow Tai Fook's pattern this time is not high, which is a bit big.
Brand mismatch is petty.
Of course, in this case, we can see that consumers did buy products at obviously unreasonable prices, but is this consistent?
The meaning of both parties is the same, that is to say, both buyers and sellers are fully aware of the authenticity of the price, which depends on the marketing environment at that time and
And whether there is a special period of price reduction and promotion. For us ordinary people, there is actually psychological expectation, because it is normal.
Under the circumstances at that time, it was impossible for 40 thousand to buy 250 thousand gold ornaments, which was unreasonable.
Bugs in e-commerce platforms are actually very common. Dealing with the transactions that have happened is also a good marketing tool for enterprises.
The major misunderstanding of the subject matter includes the misunderstanding of the variety, quality, specification and quantity of the subject matter.
However, Chow Tai Fook, as a professional gold sales organization, should have a clear understanding of its products and their market gold prices, and follow the law.
In the court's judgment, Chow Tai Fook Company did not intentionally deceive consumers by falsely marking the price. Can it be understood that Chow Tai Fook is aware of the variety and quality of its sales?
Even Chow Tai Fook misremembered the price of gold, which is quite outrageous. Shouldn't the price of such an expensive commodity be checked? You clearly mark the price, put it in front of the public for sale, and the customer places an order, which has formed an actual shopping contract. Now that the contract has been reached,
Why do you want to unilaterally terminate the contract? If so, will the Double Eleven be chaotic? If you win the lawsuit and lose people's hearts, you might as well use this 250 thousand as marketing. On that day, Wang and Ling spent more than 40,000 yuan on gold jewelry 12 pieces, which was roughly equivalent to the daily sales price.
20.9 1 ten thousand.
The next day, Chow Tai Fook communicated with the defendant, informing the technicians of the price department that they had made mistakes in operation and asked to cancel the order, but the defendant refused.
Later, Chow Tai Fook contacted the two men several times and paid 500 yuan separately.
Chow Tai Fook Company sued that there was a major misunderstanding in the conclusion of the contract, and the performance of the contract in obviously unfair caused great losses to the plaintiff, and requested that it be dealt with according to law.
The hospital terminated the contract between both parties.
The court held that, first of all, the parties to a contract must follow the principle of fairness, and one party has the right to request the cancellation of a contract concluded due to a major misunderstanding.
Judging from the plaintiff's purchase price and actual sales price, the plaintiff marked the price of the gold jewelry involved in the case as RMB on 202 1 1 65438+6.
The behavior far below the purchase price and the actual sales price obviously does not conform to the normal commercial sales behavior.
Secondly, although the signing date of the online sales contract in this case has exceeded the statutory 90-day scheduled time limit for exercising the cancellation right, the plaintiff applied to our hospital for online filing in April, 20021year, and this behavior should be regarded as having exercised the cancellation right. This date is 202 1, 17, since the plaintiff knew or should have known the reason for cancellation, which does not exceed the date of exercising the cancellation right. The plaintiff's application is reasonable and legal, and our court supports it.