Shop bullying? Tesla’s refusal of diplomatic relations leads to the “China Limited” hegemonic treaty


The original title of Tesla’s “refusing to pay door” leads to the “China area limited” type of overlord treaty, not shop bullying what is it?
Source bianews
Author Lin Li
Recently, a consumer in Hubei Province ordered a Tesla Model 3 in the group purchase activity of pinduoduo. When picking up the car, Tesla encountered “forced cancellation of the order”, which caused consumer dissatisfaction. The dispute between the two sides has also aroused widespread social concern.
The origin of the incident was that on July 22, pinduoduo launched the Tesla seckill group buying activity. The platform cooperated with Yimai to provide a cash subsidy of 20000 yuan for consumers. The Tesla Model 3 standard endurance version with a public price of 271550 yuan was only 251550 yuan, which was the lowest price in history after Tesla entered China. Close to pinduoduo, people told the media, “the car is authentic, pinduoduo subsidy is also true.”.
Although there were only five places, the huge subsidy still attracted more than 30000 people to sign up. At the same time, the super heat has also attracted the attention of Tesla officials.
According to the e-commerce news, Mr. h of Hubei is a loyal fan of Tesla. He also participated in the event and became one of the five lucky ones. After seizing the subsidy qualification, pinduoduo’s car purchasing staff quickly got in touch with Mr. h, verified his identity and the purpose of buying the car, and clearly informed him that in order to prevent “reselling” subsidy qualification, the platform would provide subsidies only if he bought the car.
Subsequently, according to Tesla’s official regulations, Mr. h placed an order through his official website and paid a deposit of 1000 yuan, leaving relevant information about the purchase of the car. After that, a customer service personnel of Tesla Wuhan store contacted Mr. h and sent the order and the balance payment information. So far, the whole purchase process is completely consistent with that of ordinary consumers.
The emergence of differences, from the customer service personnel in the communication that the payment agent for pinduoduo began. The customer service staff first reconfirmed with Mr. h the information of the actual car buyer and the license plate holder, and then reported the above situation to Tesla. Chat screenshot information at a glance.
At the same time, Mr. h also entrusted pinduoduo and yibuyi to complete the payment according to the normal process, and transferred the full amount of the car money to the account provided by Tesla.
However, on the afternoon of August 14, Tesla publicly said that it refused to deliver the vehicles, on the ground that these consumers were suspected of violating Tesla’s “no resale” clause, and Tesla would unilaterally cancel the order in accordance with the contract breach clause.
On the same night, pinduoduo also made a strong response. Lefu, a staff member of pinduoduo’s “second spell” business group, said that the purchase agreement was signed directly by the consumer himself and Tesla. After verification, the consumer did not have the intention to resell the car. Pinduoduo will support consumers to protect their rights and actively promote the implementation of car purchase transactions.
Balance payment ≠ resale,
Tesla’s unilateral refusal to deliver is suspected of breach of contract
It is understood that in order to ensure that the subsidy is truly used for consumers’ self purchase of cars, pinduoduo and yibuyi have agreed with them that they will pay in full in the process of car collection and payment. Mr. h also confirmed that “he just asked them to pay for me.”.
So, does payment on behalf violate Tesla’s “no resale” clause?
In this regard, Zhao Zhancheng, a lawyer of Beijing Zhilin law firm, believes that consumers place an order on Tesla’s official website, and pinduoduo or platform merchants pay for the final payment, which can not be regarded as the Resale Behavior in violation of its order terms.
He further explained that this payment method is to ensure the authenticity of the platform’s subsidizing consumers’ purchase behavior. In essence, consumers have reached an “advance payment agreement” with pinduoduo and Yiyi. It is not illegal for pinduoduo to pay for a car. And Tesla’s terms of purchase do not prohibit consumers from looking for a third party to pay for the car. Therefore, as long as the consumer places an order and completes the payment, Tesla should fulfill the agreement. Canceling the order and refusing to deliver the vehicle has no basis, which constitutes a breach of contract.
Whether Tesla’s unilateral forced cancellation of the order constitutes a breach of contract, the answer is obvious. According to Article 49 of China’s e-commerce law, e-commerce operators should not stipulate that the contract will not be established after the consumer pays the price in the form of standard terms. Therefore, it is a breach of contract for Tesla to cancel the order unilaterally after the contract is established.
Qiu Baochang, President of the E-commerce Law Research Association of Beijing law society and expert committee expert committee of China Consumer Association, added, “although it is an electronic contract, it has the same effect as a written contract.”
In his opinion, “no matter whether he (the consumer) entrusts pinduoduo to pay or entrusts other parties to pay, if there is no stipulation in the original electronic contract that no other person is allowed to make payment on behalf of Tesla, Tesla unilaterally considers that the contract is not tenable; or the unilateral party claims that it has not entrusted any platform to sell the car to refuse to pay consumers for the car, it is a breach of contract.”
“If Tesla thinks that pinduoduo’s behavior infringes Tesla’s legitimate rights and interests, it can be solved through negotiation and litigation, but in any case, it can not be used as an excuse to refuse to perform the electronic vehicle sales contract signed between consumers and Tesla.” Qiu Baochang said.
You Yunting, senior partner of Shanghai Dabang law firm, an intellectual property lawyer, also believes that the evidence of Tesla placing orders on behalf of pinduoduo is insufficient. Tesla may not be able to prove that the cancelled order was placed for pinduoduo or other businesses. If the consumer does not admit to placing an order, and Tesla has no evidence, the lawsuit will be lost.
“Tesla’s unilateral termination of the contract lacks legal basis. If consumers Sue Tesla to continue to perform the contract and bear the loss of breach of contract, the court will probably support it.” You Yunting said.
Price control suspected of monopoly
Be kind to consumers
Group buying Tesla finally adopts the curve way to trade, which is related to Tesla’s direct sales mode in China.
Different from other auto companies adopting the mode of complete distribution or self-supporting combined distribution, Tesla only supports users to order from the official website in China. However, the third party’s promotion behavior inadvertently moved the “cake” of Tesla’s Direct stores and destroyed its price system, which led to its extreme “forced cancellation” measures on consumers.

All kinds of signs also indicate that this is a stress protection measure taken by Tesla after the official direct marketing system encounters third-party sales promotion, which not only violates Tesla’s own rules, but also is suspected of violating the consumer protection law.
In addition, Tesla’s behavior is also suspected of violating China’s anti-monopoly law, which is suspected of price control and monopoly. Article 14 of China’s anti monopoly law stipulates that the following monopoly agreements shall be prohibited between the operator and the trading counterpart: (1) fixing the price of resale commodities to the third party; (2) limiting the minimum price of resale commodities to the third party. The reason is that this kind of behavior eliminates and limits the market competition and damages the interests of consumers and the public.
However, due to the complexity of the interest contradictions, it is common for car companies to control prices and monopolize the market. Through the absolute control of product prices, they specify monopoly high prices and obtain monopoly profits.
It is understood that many automobile sales enterprises in China have been fined high administrative penalties for price control. For example, SAIC GM was fined 201 million yuan, Mercedes Benz was fined 350 million yuan, Audi was fined 270 million yuan, Dongfeng Nissan was fined 123.3 million yuan, and Chrysler was fined 33.8241 million yuan.
As early as November 2016, Lu Yanchun, then deputy director of the price supervision and inspection and Anti Monopoly Bureau of the national development and Reform Commission, said in public that what he pursued was the further opening up of the entire automobile market, full competition and operation compliance, so as to protect the interests of consumers.
Hegemonic treaty is “China’s region limited”
What is not a big shop bully?
It is worth noting that Tesla also wrote in the regulations on cancellation of orders in China that “any order that we believe is intended for resale or for other non bona fide purposes, we have the right to unilaterally terminate the agreement.”.
In other words, if a consumer has any behavior to protect his rights or ask for a refund, Tesla can force the cancellation of the order on the grounds of “suspecting other non goodwill purposes” without refunding the deposit. A top car company can actually make such a “high handed” rule of “I has the final say”, which is also a real surprise.
In contrast, Tesla’s U.S. rules are extremely clear: if Tesla cancels an order because it believes that the customer is malicious, it needs to return the deposit to the consumer.
In this regard, Qiu Baochang pointed out that if the details of the order contract are different, Tesla will have the problem of consumer discrimination. He believes that Tesla should be kind to consumers, not because of different regions, different colors, different beliefs, there are differences in sales, otherwise consumers will “vote with their feet” in the future.
“Operators who are bigger and stronger in the market all operate according to law, safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, attach importance to and respect the consumption experience. Operators must not only rely on temporary technology and sales leading, ignore the protection of consumer rights and consumer feelings, and remember to win the trust of consumers in order to win the market.” Qiu Baochang said.
In the view of pinduoduo second Lefu of business group, consumers should be treated with kindness, “if the signboard is big, you should not be arrogant, if the store is big, you should not cheat customers; if you have advanced technology, you should be calm and treat consumers’ trust actively.”
Finally, back to the case of “refusing to pay” in China, Tesla’s performance does mean that the store bullies customers. It not only unilaterally compulsorily cancels orders based on one’s words, but also is suspected of controlling prices and monopolizing the market. After the incident, it is believed that a batch of Tesla Chinese flour will be “de powdered”.