标签归档 南京新茶工作室

Pay attention to the parallel starElectric planet News

Punch in and read every day

A deeper understanding of the transformation of the automobile industry

————————

Produced by: Electric Planet News

Authors: Crab Boss himself, Li Yujun

"Eliminate mixing! "When we put this PPT on Weibo, we actually expected that there would be great controversy.

This PPT was issued at its own press conference this afternoon. The following fine print is actually today’s theme: ultra-fast charging+high battery life+self-operation, which will change the industry structure.

Therefore, many people don’t understand why He Xiaopeng wants to mix DISS at the super-replenishment conference.

In fact, before formally introducing his own charging network, He Xiaopeng talked about his own logic, and in the subsequent small-scale group visit, he also responded to the key dispute about which is better: ultra-fast charging or power exchange.

Next, let’s take a look at Tucki’s super energy. Let’s talk about whether it makes sense to "eliminate mixing".

Let’s start.

First, Tucki’s ultra-fast charging

What is Tucki’s super energy?

To put it simply, by 2025, Tucki will build another 2,000 ultra-fast charging stations, with more than 10,000.Pile filling, the maximum charging power is 480 KW.

As for why you say "again"? At present, 1,000 self-operated charging stations have been built in Tucki, including 799 self-operated overcharge stations and 201 self-operated destination stations, covering all prefecture-level administrative regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government.

As a reference, as of August 13th, 2022, there are 966 overcharge stations and 839 destination charging stations in China.

1、S4

At today’s Tucki Super Charging Conference, Tucki’s S4 Super Fast Charge made its debut. He Xiaopeng introduced that S4 super-fast pile filling has three advantages: lighter, smarter and safer.

Lighter means that the cable weight of the charging gun is reduced by 36%, and the cable is significantly reduced.

S4, the smarter representative, supports plug-and-charge, touch-and-stop, and intelligent power distribution. According to the official, the startup speed will be controlled within 15 seconds.

Safer, it is the addition of liquid-cooled cooling charging technology, which can actively monitor the temperature rise in real time.

Tucki also laid out specific data and "hanged" a friend.

The maximum power of S4 single pile is 480kW, that of V3 is 250kW, and that of Turbo is 350 kW；;

The maximum current of S4 single pile is 670A, that of Tesla V3 is 631A, and that of Porsche Turbo is 500A；;

The peak charging power of S4 is 400kW, that of Tesla V3 is 250kW and that of Porsche Turbo is 270 kW；.

Under CLTC working condition, the battery life of S4 is 200km, that of Tesla V3 is 150km and that of Porsche Turbo is 120 km after charging for 5 minutes.

In the field measurement, the cruising range of G9 with S4 ultra-fast pile filling was increased from 55 km to 265km after 5 minutes of charging, which actually increased the cruising range by 210 km.

In the QA session after the conference, we asked how long the highest power of S4 can last. The official answer is that it can last for more than 6 minutes depending on the SOC status.

3. Ultra-fast charging layout

He Xiaopeng asserted today that the next era will be the era of ultra-fast charging.

But as he said, ultra-fast charging is a complete system, involving cars, piles and networks.

For example, power batteries, electric drives and high-voltage PTC should all support 800V high-voltage platforms.

From pile to network, it is a more important layout.

He Xiaopeng said that the goal in 2025 is to build another 2,000 ultra-fast charging stations and lay more than 10,000 piles, so as to realize "worry-free travel". At present, there are more than 1,000 stations, and some of them will be transformed into S4 ultra-fast charging stations.

From the perspective of splitting, Tucki will start the construction of S4 Super Express Station in the third quarter of this year, first of all, it will be laid out in the top ten cities with G9 orders, including Beishang Guangshen, Chengdu, Chongqing, Wuhan, Hangzhou and other cities, and it will also deploy stations at high-speed entrances and exits in several important areas of China.

In 2023 and 2024, Tucki will focus on the deployment of high-speed and destination charging stations, aiming to build energy stations with a radius of 3 kilometers in key areas.

Afterwards, we asked, how many S4 ultra-fast charging stations are planned in 10 cities this year? The answer is within 100 stops.

By the way, I need to add that at the end of 2022, Tucki will launch a brand-new charging map application. We feel that we are directly targeting the "power-on" App of Standard Weilai.

Second, eliminate mixing?

After talking about Tucki’s grand 480 KW super charging network plan, we return to the controversial sentence of "eliminating hybrid".

In fact, before talking about "eliminating mixing", He Xiaopeng made a lot of preparations.

For example, the "unexpected" surge of pure electricity,

He Xiaopeng said that around 2020, he had predicted that the proportion of pure electricity in China would reach 35% by 2025. But judging from this year’s situation, "all players in the industry have never seen such an amazing growth before." 」

22.7% new energy penetration rate!this isAccording to the data in the first half of this year, He Xiaopeng even predicted that in the second half of this year, it will reach 30% in a single month, and it will be above 25% in the whole second half!

This means that in the second half of this year, for every four cars sold in China market, one car will be a new energy vehicle!

It goes without saying that new energy vehicles must be the future!

However, pure electricity OR hybrid, who is the future?

This is the first part that He Xiaopeng focused on after he took the stage today, and he used four or five PPT.

The reason for this is partly from logic. New energy vehicles are not only pure trams, but also hybrids.

But it is speculated that more comes from competition.

For example, the competition between G9, the medium and large-scale flagship of pure electricity to be listed in Tucki, and L9, the newly released extended-range flagship.

If it is enlarged to hybrid, it will at least include the super hybrid products supported by Huawei, such as M7 and M5, and even Great Wall, and so on.

Therefore, I feel vaguely that He Xiaopeng’s exposition is actually explaining why ultra-fast charging is "the winner of the next generation of smart cars". Why should Tucki add 2000 S4 and S3 ultra-fast charging stations and ten thousand ultra-fast piles by 2025? And the uniqueness of Tucki facing the future, or moat.

Third, the key logic

So, what is the key logic that He Xiaopeng thinks the future must belong to pure electricity?

The key three.

First, ultra-fast charging will bring about an explosion in the sales of pure electric vehicles with more than 200,000 yuan.

He Xiaopeng believes that in the market below the price of 100,000 yuan, fuel vehicles are being rapidly replaced by pure electricity; In the market with the price of 100,000 to 20, at present, the performance of hybrid has been very prominent since last year. The key reason lies in economy. The price of this price is very sensitive, so the battery life will not be too high. The key is how to balance cost, battery life and convenience.

And "(pure electricity at this price) to solve this problem, it may take another two or three years, including the price of batteries, including the emergence of new technologies. 」

In the market above 200,000, the growth rate of pure electric vehicles is relatively the fastest, and there is a new change in SUVs above 300,000.

Because people who buy large and medium-sized SUVs want to open in cities and suburbs, "poetry and distance are needed", which determines that large and medium-sized SUVs with new energy should solve not only the problem of endurance, but also the problem of mileage anxiety caused by recharging, and then have different solutions such as changing electricity, mixing and fast charging.

However, the current fast charging actually does not meet everyone’s demand for pure electric energy, and then Tucki decided to build ultra-fast charging models and networks to provide better experience services.

Starting from G9, all new or modified models behind (Tucki) will be equipped with ultra-fast charging as standard … basically, S3S4 is the core. ",and this means that Tucki’s energy replenishment will be two to three times faster than the fast charging network outside.

"In the past, we were able to charge the car from 10% to 80% in about an hour, and (later) from 10% to 80% in 20 to 30 minutes. 」

He Xiaopeng further indicated that the next generation of more than 200,000 mid-to-high-end and high-end electric vehicles will meet several special baselines.

The first is to have a long battery life.To achieve 700 km CLTC, it is equivalent to a real endurance of 500-550 (WTP conversion);The second is to charge quickly."I believe that cars with more than 200,000 vehicles must have ultra-fast charging. 」Finally, we mustDo a good job in charging layoutThe layout of cars, batteries and piles should be "three-in-one", and ultra-fast charging will become an entry requirement.

Second, pure electricity meets the needs of users in most scenarios, and the next car that plugs in users is often pure electricity.

This is a very interesting judgment!

He Xiaopeng said that these judgments come from data analysis, for example, pure electricity has satisfied the vast majority of usage scenarios. He Xiaopeng said that most users in China drive less than 300km, and most of them charge once a week or 1.5 times a week.90% of the scenes are in cities and suburbs."There are more than 1000 km, but I think the proportion is less than 5%. 」

And "in the past, many people asked a question, I use electricity in the urban area, is it more suitable to use oil in the suburbs?" "He Xiaopeng said, this is the logic of mixing. Recently, they saw a very good data-"After many people who bought hybrids got used to charging … once they found that they could charge, his next car idea was to buy a pure electric car with higher battery life. 」

Thus, brought hisThe third logic:Pure electricity is more practical than mixing!

How to apply the law? The explanation given by He Xiaopeng is that the electricity cost is lower; Driving experience, especially at high speed, is more comfortable and quiet; Even the average weekly charging times will drop from 2-3 times a week to less than or equal to 1 time.

The last explanation seems quite contradictory. But … now, as long as you charge at the charging station, you will probably agree with He Xiaopeng.

He Xiaopeng said: When the battery life is higher, the charging efficiency is higher and the charging layout is better, the cost performance of pure electricity in the market of over 200,000 will be more prominent, and we are very confident that the ultra-fast charging, high battery life and self-operated charging stations will change the whole market structure. 」

I just don’t know if the ideal and asking car owners agree.

Five, fifteen questions

Question 1:Before that, the construction of the overcharging station in Tucki obviously slowed down. What are the reasons?

He Xiaopeng: The main reason is that in 2020, after thinking that ultra-fast charging is the future, we think that fast charging will basically be eliminated. The second reason, slowing down at high speed, is because it is found that many high-speed car owners expect a short waiting time for charging, which can only be met by ultra-fast charging. The third reason is that if you want to support all 800 V and silicon carbide in the car, you need to accumulate some technology.

Question 2: If we put all our energy into ultra-fast charging, it will have a great impact on the power grid, or have high requirements for the entire capacity and electricity facilities, and even build energy storage stations. Can it really be rolled out on a large scale in terms of cost?

He Xiaopeng: Ultra-fast charging can’t increase much (cost). My first is to judge the trend of technology, the second is whether it can be done, and the third is whether it is expensive or not, and whether the construction can continue. After judging all these points, I think the ultra-fast charging can be fully laid out in the second half of this year-it will be done well from the end of the third quarter of 2022, that is, next month.

Question 3: In what range is the unit price of S4?

He Xiaopeng: It is not convenient to disclose the price at present.

Question 4: Is there a specific site plan for S4 ultra-fast charging? How many piles are there in a site?

He Xiaopeng: Basically, there are four piles in one station; Medium-sized stations have eight piles. We will have some extra-large stations in the future, and some stations may have dozens of piles. It’s what we’ve always wanted to do, and it may be in a bigger city in the first line.

Question 5: Is it possible to lay out the layout in the high-speed service area?

He Xiaopeng: At present, we have seen a very gratifying change. The State Grid and China Southern Power Grid, including provincial highway administrations, are building high-speed fast charging piles, which may be 60kW, 90kW and 120kW. If the capacity is limited and the layout is capable, we will all cooperate with them. If not, it may use energy storage stations or layout at high speed. It is also convenient to lay piles at high speed. In fact, it is very convenient if it can be densely distributed at the high-speed port.

Question 6: What is the layout plan for 10 cities this year?

He Xiaopeng: There are not many piles this year, and the number of sites is probably within 100; Next year will focus on construction, the number will increase significantly.

Question 7: If there are 3,000 stations distributed all over the country in the future, how will Tucki maintain them?

He Xiaopeng: We have made some adjustments, putting the national after-sales team and the over-filled pile maintenance team together, and having a team of after-sales service system throughout the country. On this basis, through data management, if someone finds that the pile can’t be filled, they can tell us immediately, and we will remove the pile in the reservation system and then arrange maintenance.

Question 8: Some people say that the problem of infrastructure overcharge is left to the state, and it is a drop in the bucket for cars to do this. What do you think of this problem? Besides, what do you think of changing electricity?

He Xiaopeng: I don’t think this infrastructure should be considered if the vehicle is between 100,000 and 200,000 yuan. This is the scope that the more expensive and bigger the vehicle is, which is caused by different positioning. Secondly, I believe that the country’s infrastructure will be completed one day, which I believe very much, but at present, there are operational challenges, service problems and inconsistencies in various capabilities. Third, some people change power, some people mix, and some people take ultra-fast charging. There must be some solutions to the problem. I think there is no right or wrong, and they are all good solutions. However, we believe that such a scheme may be more suitable in the long term, from the perspective of globalization and energy security, and different schemes have different challenges in the short term.

Question 9: Will Xpeng Motors consider the mode of changing power stations in the future?

He Xiaopeng: We are now.Without considering changing electricity,The back is full of ultra-fast charging.

Question 10: Will the previous models consider iteration or upgrade? Will the previously deployed overcharge be adjusted?

He Xiaopeng: There are great differences between S4 ultra-fast charging and S2 fast charging systems, and they are basically new. The ultra-fast charging of S4 is compatible with the charging of S3 and S2, which is actually equivalent to improving the average charging efficiency of the original vehicle. However, from the perspective of the vehicle, it is difficult for the previous vehicle to upgrade from S2 to S4 because of the need for battery adjustment.G4 is supported by G9, S3 is supported by other configurations, and the actual requirements for batteries are different.

Question 11: Will S4 ultra-fast charging be open to third-party brands? Is it all backwards compatibility?

He Xiaopeng: We will be open in some places, but if our car owners have high demand, they will all enjoy it, because it is the most difficult to find electricity by themselves. As for compatibility, of course, all compatibility.

Question 12: What is the level of electricity charge and service price after S4 is super-fast charged?

He Xiaopeng: It’s the same at present.

Question 13: What is the battery decay life after using this high-power overcharge?

He Xiaopeng: Last year, we made a lot of efforts to customize batteries, and cooperated with battery companies to change the whole intelligence, the whole management, the power of the whole car, the module and the power module of the pile. This is the most concerned reason, so as to make everything unsafe and hands-free.

Question 14: Just now, we mentioned that there are about four piles in a station, all of which are 480kW power. If we want to run to full capacity, it means that there must be more than 160kW capacity. At present, the power grid is still difficult to support. How can Tucki solve this problem?

He Xiaopeng: At the same time, four cars are charging on this pile. I believe the probability will be lower. If you take one car for each pile, I can go at the highest speed. I may be different between two cars. Secondly, we just saw that 5 minutes is the fastest, followed by 10 minutes. After 20 minutes of charging, the speed will slow down. It is a charging curve. First, it will be charged quickly, and then gradually. When it reaches 90%, you will find it is very slow. It will charge slowly to ensure the safety of the battery. You will see that some cars may be at 70% of the time, and he doesn’t have to be so fast. He can give another car 10% or 30% of the charge, so there is no need to multiply the overall capacitance by 4.

Question 15: How much capacity does a single station generally need?

He Xiaopeng: That’s 480 kW.

(End)

directory

1. Yin Chongyi v. Wuhan Hanfu Supermarket Co., Ltd. Hanyang Branch Sales Contract Dispute

2. Liu Xin v. Shaanxi Lixin Pharmacy Sales Contract Dispute

3. Wang Xin v. Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd. Online shopping contract dispute

4. Li Xiaodong v. Jiuxian.com e-commerce joint stock company online shopping contract dispute case

5. Yang Bo v. Bayannaoer Hezhong Yuantong Express Co., Ltd. Wulat Qianqi Branch and Fu Yingchun Online Shopping Contract Dispute

6. Fan Jianwu v. Guangdong Provincial Cultural Relics General Store Sales Contract Dispute

7. Yu Aoyong v. Bi Liping Product Seller Liability Dispute

8. Wang v. Beijing Yiluyou Baby Products Co., Ltd. Service Contract Dispute

9. Wu Junmei v. Zhejiang Pingyun Commercial Trading Co., Ltd. Sale and Purchase Contract Dispute Case

10. Wang Yi v. Tianjin Zhongjin Peixian Automotive Service Co., Ltd. Dispute over the sale contract

I. Yin Chongyi v. Wuhan Hanfu Supermarket Co., Ltd. Hanyang Branch for a dispute over a sales contract

– An operator selling expired food is an act of selling it knowing that the food is unsafe. Consumers have the right to request a refund of the payment and pay ten times the price for compensation.

(1) Basic case

On June 17, 2013, Yin Chongyi paid 251 yuan to Wuhan Hanfu Supermarket Co., Ltd. Hanyang Branch (hereinafter referred to as Hanfu Supermarket) to buy a box of Taohuaji Ejiao cakes. The production date stated on the outer packaging of the food was August 7, 2012, and the shelf life was 10 months. After purchasing, Yin Chongyi found that the food had passed the shelf life, and asked the supermarket to return the goods to no avail. He then sued the People’s Court of Hanyang District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province, requesting Hanfu Supermarket to refund the payment of 251 yuan, compensate 2510 yuan ten times the payment, pay 3,000 yuan for transportation and 3,000 yuan for spiritual comfort.

(2) Referee results

The court of first instance held that the shopping invoice provided by Yin Chongyi could prove that he had established a sales contract relationship with Hanfu Supermarket. It was determined whether the Taohuaji Ejiao cake that Yin Chongyi now held that had expired and based on which he filed a lawsuit was the product sold by Hanfu Supermarket at that time. First of all, Yin Chongyi provided the actual product and the shopping invoice, which completed the burden of proof to prove that consumers shopped, and Yin Chongyi reported the situation to Hanfu Supermarket on the day of purchase and requested a return. The two parties failed to negotiate and appealed to the Hanyang Branch of Wuhan Administration for Industry and Commerce on the same day. Yin Chongyi reported the product quality problem in a timely manner. Although Hanfu Supermarket argued that the expired Peach Blossom Ji Ejiao Cake that Yin Chongyi requested to return was not provided by Hanfu Supermarket, it did not submit to the court the evidence of purchase at the same time to prove that it was not sold by Hanfu Supermarket, and the Peach Blossom Ji Ejiao Cake provided by Yin Chongyi was not a batch of products. Hanfu Supermarket cannot provide complete food purchase inspection records and should bear the burden of proof. Its sale of food beyond the shelf life is prohibited by law. Accordingly, the court of first instance, in accordance with Article 96 of the Food Safety Law, ordered Hanfu Supermarket to refund the payment of 251 yuan, compensate 2510 yuan ten times the payment, and compensate Yin Chongyi 500 yuan for transportation expenses. Hanfu Supermarket appealed on the grounds that the facts found in the original trial and the applicable law were wrong. Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court 2nd-round Moderation held that Hanfu Supermarket’s claim that the goods involved in this case were not sold by it, but it could not provide sufficient evidence to prove it, and it had no objection to the shopping invoice issued by Yin Chongyi, so it did not support its claim. Hanfu Supermarket’s sale of expired food is prohibited by law and should be liable for compensation according to law. The court did not support the claim that it did not deliberately sell expired food and should not be liable for compensation, and the judgment upheld the original judgment.

Liu Xin v. Shaanxi Lixin Pharmacy Sales Contract Dispute

– The operator sells health food with counterfeit other batches, which is the sale of food that is known to be unsafe. Consumers have the right to request a refund of the payment and pay ten times the price for compensation.

(1) Basic case

On October 19, 2012, Liu Xin paid 280 yuan to Shaanxi Lixin Pharmacy (hereinafter referred to as Lixin Pharmacy) to buy 4 boxes of "Fast Slimming and Weight Loss Capsules". The product packaging indicated that the approval number was Weishijianzi (2003) No. 0129. After Liu Xin purchased it, it was unopened and uneaten. After logging on to the website of the State Food and Drug Administration, he found no relevant information on the product. According to the approval number Weishijianzi (2003) No. 0129 indicated on the product packaging, it was found that the name of the health product under this number approved by the Ministry of Health of the People’s Republic of China was: "Qiaomei Brand Weight Loss Capsules". Liu Xin believed that the health food he purchased was not registered with the State Food and Drug Administration and should be an unqualified counterfeit product. Therefore, he sued the People’s Court of Lianhu District, Xi’an City, Shaanxi Province, requesting Lixin Pharmacy to refund 280 yuan and ten times the purchase price of 2,800 yuan.

(2) Referee results

After trial, the court held that the "fast slimming and weight loss capsules" sold by Lixin Pharmacy were health food, and the approval number marked on the food was inconsistent with the product name "Qiaomei brand weight loss capsules" of the same approval number on the website of the State Food and Drug Administration. Lixin Pharmacy also failed to provide supporting documents for the production of the product. Article 5 of the "Health Food Management Measures" stipulates: "All foods claiming to have health care functions must be reviewed and confirmed by the Ministry of Health"; Article 21, Item 5 of the Measures stipulates: "Health food labels and instructions must comply with relevant national standards and requirements, and indicate the health food approval number". The health food "Quick Slimming and Weight Loss Capsules" sold by Lixin Pharmacy is a product with a fraudulent approval number, and its behavior violates the above provisions. Lixin Pharmacy, as a seller, failed to review the relevant approval certificate when purchasing, so that the product entered the circulation link. Its behavior constitutes the second paragraph of Article 96 of the Food Safety Law "Selling food that is knowingly not in line with food safety standards", and should be returned and refunded according to law and paid compensation. The court then ruled that Lixin Pharmacy should refund Liu Xin 280 yuan for the goods and compensate Liu Xin ten times the shopping price of 2,800 yuan. Lixin Pharmacy did not appeal.

III. Wang Xin v. Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd. Online shopping contract dispute

– If the seller sells goods online with price fraud and induces consumers to buy the goods, even if the quality of the goods is qualified, the consumer has the right to request the seller to "refund one to three" and guarantee compensation.

(1) Basic case

On April 8, 2014, Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xiaomi) published an advertisement on its official website showing: 10400mAh mobile power supply, with a special price of 49 yuan for the "Rice Noodles Festival". On the same day, Wang Xin ordered the following two mobile power supplies on the website: Xiaomi Metal Mobile Power 10400mAh silver 69 yuan, Xiaomi Mobile Power 5200mAh silver 39 yuan. After Wang Xin submitted the order, he paid 108 yuan to Xiaomi through Alipay on the same day. On the 12th of the same month, Wang Xin received the above two mobile power supplies and matching data cables. On the 17th of the same month, Wang Xin found that the original data cable using the 5200mAh mobile power supply could not fully charge the mobile phone, so he contacted Xiaomi’s customer service and asked to exchange the data cable. Xiaomi agreed to exchange and has received the data cable. Afterwards, Wang Xin sued the People’s Court of Haidian District, Beijing, on the grounds that Xiaomi had committed price fraud against him, requesting the cancellation of the online shopping contract. Wang Xin returned two sets of mobile power supplies involved in the case to Xiaomi, and requested Xiaomi to: 1. Compensation for Wang Xin 500 yuan; 2. Refund Wang Xin’s purchase price of 108 yuan; 3. Pay Wang Xin’s courier fee of 15 yuan; 4. Compensation for Wang Xin’s transportation, printing, and copying fees of 100 yuan.

(2) Referee results

The court of first instance held that the online shopping contract involved in the case was valid, Xiaomi’s behavior did not constitute fraud, and Wang Xin’s lawsuit request was insufficient, so the judgment rejected his lawsuit request. Wang Xin refused to accept it and appealed to the Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court, claiming that Xiaomi had advertised the original price of 69 yuan a week in advance for the "Rice Noodles Festival" to sell for 49 yuan, deceiving consumers to queue up to buy. The advertisement was still there on the day of sale, but the goods were sold for 69 yuan. Xiaomi set a regular panic buying for online shopping, and the panic buying time was less than 20 minutes, which constituted price fraud. The 2nd-round Moderation Court held that the online shopping contract involved was valid, and consumers had the right to arm’s length transaction and the right to know about the goods. Due to the particularity of Xiaomi’s online panic buying sales method, the advertisement is directly linked to the panic buying interface of the product and consumers need to express their intention to buy in a short period of time. Wang Xin agreed with Xiaomi’s advertising price of 49 yuan, so the price of panic buying on the day of the "Rice Noodles Festival" should be 49 yuan. However, as can be seen from the order details on Xiaomi’s website, Wang Xin placed an order at 14:30 on April 8, 2014, and the price of the 10400mAh mobile power supply in the order was 69 yuan instead of 49 yuan. Xiaomi now acknowledges that there is an error displayed on the activity interface of Xiaomi Mall, and there is an inconsistency between the advertising price and the actual settlement price, but it is interpreted as an error in the computer background system. Since Xiaomi did not make a statement to consumers on the Internet about the error in its background after the fact, and it had no evidence to prove that its computer background failed on the day of the "Rice Noodles Festival", the 2nd-round Moderation Court found that Xiaomi had deliberately defrauded consumers. Wang Xin’s request for fraudulent request to revoke the contract for the 10400mAh mobile power supply was reasonable. For the other power supply, both parties agreed to terminate the contract, and the 2nd-round Moderation Court granted it. Accordingly, the court ruled that Wang Xin returned the above two mobile power supplies to Xiaomi Company according to law, and Xiaomi Company guaranteed compensation to Wang Xin of 500 yuan, refunded Wang Xin’s payment of 108 yuan, and rejected Wang Xin’s other claims.

Four, Li Xiaodong v. Jiuxian.com e-commerce joint stock company online shopping contract dispute case

– The e-commerce company, as a seller, has fraudulent behavior in the process of using other people’s networks to sell goods. After the transaction, it reaches a compensation agreement with the consumer and fails to fulfill it. The consumer has the right to request the seller to bear compensation liability in accordance with the agreement.

(1) Basic case

On August 9, 2012, Li Xiaodong bought 6 bottles of Baijiu sold by Jiuxian.com e-commerce joint stock company (hereinafter referred to as Jiuxian.com) on Taobao. The online product page described it as [Baijiu China Famous Brand 52 Degrees Wuliangye (1618) 500ml Special Price], and the transaction price was 8349 yuan. After the transaction was completed, Li Xiaodong checked the above webpage and found that the Baijiu purchased in Jiuxian.com’s Taobao store won the bidding of the product "special price and original price" equal, so he reported it to the Beijing Price Reporting Center. Afterwards, Li Xiaodong and Jiuxian Company reached a "Understanding Agreement", agreeing that the two parties would complete the return and refund procedures within 5 days after the signing of the agreement. Jiuxian Company compensated Li Xiaodong 8,394 yuan, and if one party breached the contract, it would bear 20% of the total amount of liquidated damages. Because Jiuxian Company failed to fulfill the agreement, Li Xiaodong sued to the People’s Court of Binhai County, Jiangsu Province, requesting Jiuxian Company to compensate 8,394 yuan and bear liquidated damages of 1678.8 yuan.

(2) Referee results

The court under suit held that business operators should follow the principles of voluntary, equal, fair, and good faith when conducting transactions with consumers. In the course of transactions, business operators should provide consumers with true information about the goods and must not make false propaganda. In the course of online transactions in this case, Jiuxian Company misled consumers by selling special goods online. Its behavior constituted fraud and should bear legal responsibility according to law. Li Xiaodong reached an understanding agreement with Jiuxian Company in the process of claiming compensation. Because Jiuxian Company failed to perform its obligations in accordance with the agreement, its behavior constituted a breach of contract and should bear the liability for breach of contract. Therefore, Li Xiaodong’s lawsuit request for Jiuxian Company to perform its compensation obligations in accordance with the agreement complies with the law and should be supported according to law. After being legally summoned by the court of appeal, Jiuxian Company refused to appear in court to participate in the lawsuit without justifiable reasons, which was regarded as giving up its right to defend and should bear the unfavorable legal consequences. The court ordered Jiuxian Company to pay Li Xiaodong 8,394 yuan in compensation and 1,678.8 yuan in liquidated damages, totaling 10,072.8 yuan. Jiuxian Company did not appeal.

V. Yang Bo v. Bayannaoer Hezhong Yuantong Express Co., Ltd. Wulat Qianqi Branch and Fu Yingchun Online Shopping Contract Dispute

– If the goods purchased online by the consumer are falsely claimed by others during the delivery process, and the consumer claims that the seller and the deliveryman jointly bear the liability for compensation, the seller shall bear the liability for compensation according to the principle of relativity of contract.

(1) Basic case

On March 19, 2013, Yang Bo purchased a computer worth 15,123 yuan from Fu Yingchun’s electronic business department in the form of online shopping. After placing the order, the payment and postage of 95 yuan have been paid to Yingchun. On the same day, Fu Yingchun entrusted Wulateqianqi Branch of Bayannaoer Hezhong Yuantong Express Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the courier company) to deliver the goods. The goods arrived at the delivery place on the 24th of the same month and were falsely claimed by others. To this end, Yang Bo repeatedly asked Fu Yingchun to deliver the goods unsuccessfully, and then sued the People’s Court of Wulateqianqi, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, requesting that the courier company and Fu Yingchun compensate 15,123 yuan for the computer payment and 95 yuan for the postage.

(2) Referee results

The court held that Yang Bo purchased goods from Fu Yingchun in the form of online shopping, and paid the payment and postage to Fu Yingchun. Fu Yingchun, as the shipper, entrusted the courier company to deliver the goods to Yang Bo, forming the online shopping contract relationship and the transportation contract relationship respectively. From the perspective of the respective rights and obligations of the parties, in the online shopping contract, Yang Bo has paid the payment and postage through online banking, fulfilled the consumer’s payment obligation, and Fu Yingchun, as the seller, has the obligation to deliver the goods to Yang Bo according to the contract. Although Fu Yingchun has handed over the goods to the courier company for shipment, during the transportation process, the courier company’s staff handed over the goods to others for receipt without verifying the identity information of the other party during delivery. The seller Fu Yingchun has not completed the delivery obligation of the goods, which constitutes a breach of contract. Therefore, Yang Bo’s request for Fu Yingchun to compensate 15,123 yuan for the paid computer payment and 95 yuan for postage should be supported. According to the principle of relativity of the contract, the contract only binds the parties to the contract. The courier company’s wrong delivery of the goods to others belongs to the transportation relationship between Fu Yingchun and the courier company. The courier company should not be liable for compensation in this case, so Yang Bo’s request that the courier company should be liable for compensation is not supported. The court ordered Yingchun to compensate Yang Bo 15,123 yuan for the computer payment and 95 yuan for the postage. None of the parties appealed.

Fan Jianwu v. Guangdong Provincial Cultural Relics General Store over a dispute over a sales contract

– The seller sells the ordinary pomegranate jade bracelet as a jadeite bracelet, which constitutes a fraud to the consumer. The consumer has the right to request a return to the seller, and the seller refunds the money to the consumer and pays three times the price compensation.

(1) Basic case

On April 17, 2014, Fan Jianwu bought a bracelet at the Guangdong Provincial Cultural Relics General Store (hereinafter referred to as the Cultural Relics General Store) for 17,100 yuan. The store issued an invoice to him. The invoice stated that the goods were "yqgda-0765 jade bracelet" and the amount was 17,100 yuan. On the 24th of the same month, Fan Jianwu went to the store again to ask for a replacement invoice. The store then withdrew the original invoice and issued a new invoice for Fan Jianwu. The invoice stated that the goods were "yqgda-0765 jadeite bracelet". The purchased bracelet was identified as "water calcium aluminous garnet bracelet" by the Guangdong Provincial Institute of Geological Sciences. Later, at the request of the store, the parties jointly entrusted the Guangdong Provincial Jewelry, Jade and Precious Metals Testing Center to re-identify the bracelet, and the appraisal result was "garnet jade bracelet". Fan Jianwu believed that the Cultural Relics General Store sold ordinary garnet bracelets as jadeite bracelets as fake ones, which constituted fraud. Therefore, he sued the People’s Court of Yuexiu District, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, requesting the Cultural Relics General Store to refund him 17,100 yuan and compensate him 51,300 yuan according to law.

(2) Referee results

After trial, the court of first instance held that the sales invoice issued by the Cultural Heritage Store to Fan Jianwu showed that it was a "jadeite bracelet", but it was identified as a "garnet jade bracelet". Although the store argued that it changed the first invoice item "jade bracelet" to "jadeite bracelet" after repeated pleas by Fan Jianwu, from the audio recording evidence provided by Fan Jianwu, the store claimed that the bracelet it sold to Fan Jianwu was made of jadeite, and clearly informed Fan Jianwu that the jade bracelet purchased was made of jadeite. As the operator of the store, the "garnet jade bracelet" was sold to Fan Jianwu as a "jadeite bracelet", which was fake and could be identified as a fraudulent consumer. In accordance with Article 55 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, the court of first instance ruled that Fan Jianwu returned the bracelet purchased to the main cultural relics store, and the store refunded Fan Jianwu 17,100 yuan for the goods; the main cultural relics store compensated Fan Jianwu 51,300 yuan for three times the price of the bracelet. The Cultural Relics General Store refused to accept it and appealed on the grounds that the facts found in the original trial and the application of law were wrong. The Intermediate People’s Court of Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, 2nd-round Moderation held that according to the invoice issued by the Cultural Relics General Store and the recording of the conversation provided by Fan Jianwu, it has been fully confirmed that the "jadeite bracelet" it sold to Fan Jianwu has been determined to be a "garnet jade bracelet" after being jointly commissioned by both parties. There is a significant difference in the quality of the goods claimed by the Cultural Relics General Store during the sales process. Therefore, the original court found that its behavior constituted fraud and was not improper. The Cultural Relics General Store argued that its behavior did not constitute fraud on the grounds that the bracelet in dispute had cultural relic value, and Fan Jianwu did not suffer losses, and the reasons were not established. Accordingly, the court upheld the original judgment.

VII. Yu Aoyong v. Bi Liping Product Seller Liability Dispute

– The operator falsely advertises its health care products and induces consumers to buy them, which constitutes commercial fraud. Consumers have the right to ask the operator to refund the payment and pay three times the compensation.

(1) Basic case

On April 16, 2014, Yu Aoyong purchased two sets of Shuangning brand functional health mattresses at the price of 14,100 yuan in Bi Liping, with a specification of 2 meters × 1.5 meters × 0.12 meters. After use, the mattress did not have the functions of preventing cancer, inhibiting cancer cell growth, treating diseases and preventing diseases as advertised by Bi Liping. To this end, Yu Aoyong sued the People’s Court of Weihai Torch High-tech Industrial Development Zone in Shandong Province, claiming that Bi Liping’s behavior constituted fraud, and requested that Bi Liping be ordered to refund the payment of 28,200 yuan and compensate him 84,600 yuan three times the purchase price.

(2) Referee results

After hearing, the court held that Bi Liping recognized the facts claimed by Yu Aoyong, and his behavior constituted commercial fraud, and admitted that he should return the money and pay three times the compensation as requested by the plaintiff. In accordance with Article 55 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, the court ruled that Bi Liping returned 28,200 yuan for the goods in Aoyong and compensated 84,600 yuan for three times the price of the goods purchased by Aoyong. Bi Liping did not appeal.

Eight, Wang v. Beijing Yiluyou Baby Products Co., Ltd. Service Contract Dispute

– – During the consumption process of using the prepaid card, the consumer card cannot be used because the operator is not operating at the original address, and he has the right to request to cancel the contract and refund the balance of the prepaid card.

(1) Basic case

On September 3, 2013, the baby Wang experienced a swim at Beijing Yilu Tour Baby Products Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yilu Tour Company), and his mother paid the Yilu Tour Company a deposit of 100 yuan for the swimming card. On the 5th of the same month, his mother paid the Yilu Tour Company the balance of 2498 yuan for 40 swimming cards (the period is from September 5, 2013 to September 5, 2014). After applying for the card, Wang swam once, but there was no crying phenomenon. During the third and fourth swims, Yilu Tour Company no longer operates at the original address, and Wang’s swimming card can no longer be used. Wang on the grounds that the services provided by Yilu Tour Company did not meet the contract agreement and Wang could not achieve the purpose of the contract, he requested to terminate the contract with Yilu Tour Company and refund the remaining money, but was rejected, and then sued the People’s Court of Fengtai District, Beijing, requesting Yilu Tour Company to return its deposit of 100 yuan and the balance of the swimming card 2387.55 yuan.

(2) Referee results

The court of first instance held that the service contract signed orally between Wang and Yilu Tour Company was valid. The business scope, address and invoice issues of Yilu Tour Company that Wang complained about were irrelevant to the purpose of the contract; the alleged violation of relevant management regulations and the services provided by Yilu Tour Company did not conform to the agreement, and the evidence was insufficient to prove that the purpose of the contract could not be achieved and the actions of Yilu Tour Company had a causal relationship, so the judgment rejected Wang’s lawsuit. Wang appealed that Yilu Tour Company had breached the contract and the contract should be cancelled. The 2nd-round Moderation of the Second Intermediate People’s Court of Beijing held that during the 2nd-round Moderation of this case, Yilu Tour Company failed to appear in court to respond to the lawsuit after being legally summoned, nor did it operate in its place of business and registration, so that the swimming card purchased by Wang could not continue to be used, and the contract could no longer be performed in fact. Wang’s appeal claim for termination of the contract is in line with the circumstances of termination of the contract stipulated in Article 93 of the Contract Law. Accordingly, the court ruled: revoke the judgment of first instance, terminate the service contract between Wang and Yilu Tour Company, and Yilu Tour Company returns Wang’s swimming card fee of 2262.65 yuan and deposit of 100 yuan.

Nine, Wu Junmei v. Zhejiang Pingyun Commercial Trading Co., Ltd. Dispute over sales contract

– The seller installs the air conditioner he sells according to the contract. During the installation process, due to safety hazards that occur inadvertently and cause losses to consumers, he shall bear corresponding compensation liabilities.

(1) Basic case

On April 30, 2008, Wu Junmei purchased a big gold medal air conditioner from Zhejiang Shuangyun Commercial Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Shuangshi Company), with a total price of 8,051 yuan. The company issued an installation order to Wu Junmei, and sent someone to install an air conditioner at Wu Junmei’s home on May 11, 2008. In August 2013, the floor and wall of Wu Junmei’s living room and adjacent rooms were eroded by water. After inspection by the after-sales staff of Dajin Air Conditioning, it was confirmed that the wall hole where the drain pipe of the air conditioner passed through was not blocked, and the drain pipe at the hole where the mouse bit the wall hole leaked. Wu Junmei repaired the damaged floor, wall and related areas, and the repair cost was not compensated. Wu Junmei then sued the People’s Court of Xiaoshan District, Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, requesting that the company be ordered to compensate 14,104 yuan for its losses and pay 10,000 yuan for mental damage.

(2) Referee results

The court heard that the sales contract relationship between Wu Junmei and Ning Company was established and legal and valid. The air conditioner is a kind of refrigeration equipment with high installation specifications. As the seller, Ning Company should not only provide machinery and equipment that meet the quality requirements, but also provide installation services that meet the requirements of the specifications. Whether the air conditioner purchased by Wu Junmei was actually installed by the manufacturer or by the seller, it cannot be excluded that the seller, as the counterparty to the contract, has the obligation to ensure that the air conditioner is in normal use and does not cause damage to personal property. The company failed to exercise reasonable care and failed to ensure that the wall hole through which the air conditioner drain pipe passes is blocked, so that mice can enter the wall hole and bite off the drain pipe, causing water leakage and causing damage to the walls and floors of the house. There was a causal relationship between his failure to properly perform his contractual obligations and the damage results, and he was responsible for the losses suffered by Wu Junmei. As a consumer, Wu Junmei asked the company to compensate for the cost of repairing the floor and wall, and the court supported it. The missed work fee and mental damage consolation money claimed by Wu Junmei lacked basis, and the court did not support it. The court ruled that the company should compensate Wu Junmei for the actual repair cost of 12,175 yuan. The company did not appeal.

X. Wang Yi v. Tianjin Zhongjin Peixian Automotive Service Co., Ltd. Dispute over the sale contract

– The operator sells the recalled car, which constitutes commercial fraud. Consumers have the right to request the refund of the purchased car, and the operator will refund the purchase price and compensate double the purchase price.

(1) Basic case

On September 28, 2013, Wang Yi purchased a small off-road bus of Outlander JE3A2693 from Tianjin Zhongjin Pei Xian Automobile Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhongjin Automobile Company) at a price of 249,800 yuan. Zhongjin Automobile Company paid 22,700 yuan for vehicle purchase tax, 225 yuan for vehicle and vessel tax, 1,100 yuan for compulsory motor vehicle traffic accident insurance, and 10,752 yuan for comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, totaling 34,777 yuan. A license fee of 900 yuan was charged. On October 15, 2013, Zhongjin Automobile Company delivered the vehicle to Wang Yi. On February 7, 2014, Zhongjin Automobile Company informed Wang Yi that the vehicle should be recalled. On June 4, 2013, Mitsubishi Motors Sales (China) Co., Ltd. issued a recall notice for some imported Outlander vehicles. The recall period is from June 5, 2013 to June 4, 2014. The scope of the recalled vehicles includes the vehicles purchased by Wang Yi. The defect is caused by the supplier’s manufacturing reasons, resulting in the failure of the components that monitor the internal microcomputer power supply of the electric power steering cgroup parts. There may be consequences such as wrong start of the power monitoring circuit, and there are potential safety hazards. The maintenance measures are to replace the electric power steering cgroup parts (EPS-ECU). Wang Yi then sued the People’s Court of Tianjin Binhai New Area, requesting the return of the car. Zhongjin Automobile Company returned the purchase price of 285,477 yuan and tripled the compensation of 749,400 yuan.

(2) Referee results

The court of first instance held that in this case, the producer had informed the public of the fact that some imported Outlander cars had product defects that should be recalled and the scope of the recall by means of a media announcement. Therefore, the fact that the vehicles in dispute belonged to the vehicles that should be recalled was a matter that had been informed to the public, and there was no concealment. In addition, according to the recall announcement issued by the producer, the defects of the vehicles in dispute could be eliminated by replacing the electric power steering cgroup unit (EPS-ECU) with an improved process, and afterward, Zhongjin Automobile Company took the initiative to inform Wang Yi that the defects of the vehicles in dispute had not been eliminated and that components needed to be replaced, so Zhongjin Automobile Company did not have the intention to conceal this. In summary, Zhongjin Automobile Company’s behavior did not constitute fraud, so the judgment rejected Wang Yi’s lawsuit. Wang Yi appealed on the grounds that the facts of the original judgment were unclear and the application of law was wrong. 2nd-round Moderation of Tianjin Second Intermediate People’s Court held that Zhongjin Automobile Company, as an operator, should know whether the vehicle was within the scope of the recall, and its defense could not be established because it was unaware of the recall of the vehicle involved. Zhongjin Automobile Company concealed the defects of the vehicle and sold it, which constituted commercial fraud. The vehicle sales in this case took place before the amendment of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, so Zhongjin Automobile Company should bear the legal responsibility of "one refund and one compensation". The court’s 2nd-round Moderation judgment: Revoking the first-instance judgment in this case, Wang Yi returned the car to Zhongjin Automobile Company, Zhongjin Automobile Company refunded Wang Yi 249,800 yuan for the purchase of the car, doubled the compensation to Wang Yi 249,800 yuan, and compensated Wang Yi for vehicle purchase tax, etc. A total of 35,677 yuan.