Shulou(Shulou.com)11/24 Report--

CTOnews.com, December 5, according to the official account of Hangzhou Internet Court, Hangzhou Internet Court recently heard a dispute over the contract of buying and selling information network caused by the transaction of NFT (non-homogenized pass) digital collection.

Tuyuan Pixabay accused a digital technology company in Hangzhou (hereinafter referred to as "Company A") to operate an e-commerce platform specializing in digital art sales, and the plaintiff Wang (a pseudonym) is a user of the platform.

In February this year, Company An issued a panic buying announcement through the above platform, saying that a "blind box of NFT digital collection" would be sold in a limited edition. The announcement records the details of the sale, such as price, rush purchase time, limited purchase quantity and so on, as well as the QR code of the purchase channel. At the bottom of the announcement, you need to fill in a mobile phone number that is consistent with real-name authentication, and only one copy of a mobile phone number can be snapped up. The platform will eliminate invalid orders such as non-real-name authentication and incorrectly filled in personal information, and make a compulsory refund for invalid orders.

The plaintiff, Wang, claimed that he snapped up a copy of the "NFT digital collection blind box" sold by Company A through the purchase channels publicized by the announcement, and paid 999 yuan after filling in his mobile phone number and personal information. However, Company A did not deliver the goods and forced a refund to Wang 10 days later. Wang believed that Company A's move infringed upon its legitimate rights and interests, so he went to court and asked Company A to perform the contract, and if he could not perform, he would compensate him for the loss of 99999 yuan.

The defendant Company An argued that in order to prevent some users from using plug-in software to make abnormal panic purchases of digital collections, and to help users better understand the panic buying rules, the platform specially issued a panic purchase notice with notes before selling the goods. Because some of the numbers of the mobile phone number and ID number filled in by Wang at the time of issuing the order do not match the actual information, the platform will make a refund. Company A believes that the contract has not been concluded, and even if the contract is established, it has been terminated in accordance with the agreement, and the plaintiff has accepted a refund without actual loss. And the digital blind box has been sold, can not continue to perform the contract.

The court held that the transaction involved in the case was the NFT digital collection, not the NFT certificate of rights and interests. The special feature of this case is that the subject matter of the transaction between the two parties is the NFT digital collection, so it is necessary to confirm the legal attribute of the NFT digital collection first. NFT digital collection has the object characteristics of property rights such as value, scarcity, controllability and transactionability. At the same time, it also has the unique attributes of network virtual property, such as network virtual property and technology, so it belongs to network virtual property. The contract involved in the case does not violate the legal provisions of our country, nor does it violate the realistic policy and regulatory guidance of preventing economic and financial risks, so it should be protected by the law of our country.

Although the rush purchase announcement issued by Company A belongs to the invitation to offer in form, the details of the sale, purchase channels and matters needing attention in the announcement are in line with the constitutive elements of the offer. When Wang chooses the blind box of digital goods through the purchase channel provided by the announcement, the above content can be regarded as an offer made by Company A to a specific counterpart. When Wang "promises" in the way of successfully submitting an order, the above content forms part of the contract between the two parties, and there is no invalid situation, which is binding on both parties.

It is clear in the panic purchase announcement that Company A has agreed that it has the right to terminate the contract in view of the lack of real name authentication or misfilling of personal information. From the details of the order submitted by Wang, the fourth digit of his mobile phone number and the sixth digit of his ID card do not meet the requirements, which belongs to the case of incorrect personal information. The refund of the money paid by Wang by Company An is a concrete manifestation of the exercise of the right to rescind the contract. Wang asked to continue to perform the contract, there is no corresponding contract and legal basis, the court will not support it. As there is no breach of contract or violation of the law in the refund of company A to Wang, Wang's alternative claim for compensation of 99999 yuan from a digital technology company in Hangzhou has no corresponding factual and legal basis, and the court will not support it.

In the end, the court rejected Wang's claim.

Welcome to subscribe "Shulou Technology Information " to get latest news, interesting things and hot topics in the IT industry, and controls the hottest and latest Internet news, technology news and IT industry trends.