After "1 Yuan Car Purchase," Merchant Refuses to Deliver and Claims It Was a "Test Link," Court Rules

The Paper News Reporter Xu Hui

After ordering a car for 1 yuan, the merchant refused to ship, claiming the link was a “test link” and not a real sales activity. Consumer Xiao Wen (pseudonym) was initially surprised by the “1 yuan car purchase” but quickly became disappointed and angry, then took the merchant to court.

On March 19, during the “E-Justice Together” national online legal awareness campaign, The Paper News learned from the Chengdu Railway Transport First Court (Chengdu Internet Court) that this highly publicized “1 yuan car purchase” online sales dispute was ultimately judged by the court to be invalid because the listed price was not the merchant’s genuine intent to sell. Therefore, the contract was not established, and all of Xiao Wen’s claims were dismissed.

Chengdu Railway Transport First Court President Cheng YuanYuan stated that this case clarified the judicial standards for recognizing online shopping contracts, balanced consumer rights with the development of the e-commerce industry, and guided consumers to shop rationally and merchants to operate规范, jointly maintaining a fair and orderly online trading environment.

Chengdu Railway Transport First Court President Cheng YuanYuan introduced the internet court situation to the media. Photo by Xu Hui of The Paper News

The 1 yuan car purchase webpage caused a sales dispute, with the merchant claiming it was a “test link”

Consumer Xiao Wen found a car priced at 1 yuan on an official car company store on an e-commerce platform. After completing the order and payment, the merchant refused to ship, citing a “system error,” and only apologized via customer service, suggesting a refund.

Xiao Wen believed this constituted breach of contract and took legal action.

In October 2025, the Chengdu Railway Transport First Court’s Internet Tribunal held a public hearing, moving the court session to Sichuan Normal University Law School, with the entire process broadcast online. Over a hundred teachers and students attended on-site, experiencing the judicial process and reasoning firsthand.

During the trial, Xiao Wen’s lawyer emphasized that the defendant, as a professional merchant, should be responsible for platform display behavior. Xiao Wen had invested time and effort based on trust in the platform and merchant; the merchant should deliver the vehicle as agreed or compensate for damages of 118,900 yuan.

The defendant’s auto company argued that the “1 yuan car purchase” was not a real sales activity but only a test link, and thus no contract was formed.

The defendant’s legal representative pointed out multiple inconsistencies on the product page: the brand displayed as “XX Qiyuan,” but the manufacturer listed a different car brand; the model was an electric vehicle, yet the description included “1.5 manual,” which is specific to fuel cars, allowing rational consumers to judge that this link was not a normal sales link.

Moreover, the link was a test product uploaded due to backend misoperation. After discovering the order, staff immediately contacted the plaintiff to apologize and offered a refund. Based on the “E-commerce Platform User Registration Agreement” and the principle of genuine intent in civil law, no specific vehicle sales agreement was reached, so the contract was invalid.

During the debate, the defendant’s lawyer used details like configuration discrepancies to prove that Xiao Wen knew the link was abnormal yet still ordered; Xiao Wen argued that ordinary consumers lack the ability and obligation to distinguish internal technical errors of merchants, and that the merchant’s refusal to perform due to internal errors violated the principles of good faith and honest conduct, disrupting the transaction order.

The Chengdu Railway Transport First Court found that although the product page indicated color, model, and other information, there were obvious flaws such as mismatched manufacturer and brand, incorrect configuration descriptions, and prices far below market value. After placing the order, the system showed “warehouse processing” due to backend error, and the merchant called Xiao Wen to apologize and explain after the order was placed.

The involved e-commerce platform stated in court that it would not assume joint liability and requested the dismissal of Xiao Wen’s claims. Due to significant disagreements, the defendant refused mediation, and no verdict was announced that day.

On March 19, during the publicity event, the Chengdu Railway Transport First Court (Chengdu Internet Court) announced that it had dismissed all of Xiao Wen’s claims.

The court held that the formation and effectiveness of online shopping contracts should be based on the Civil Code’s offer and acceptance rules, with genuine mutual intent as a prerequisite.

Product information published by merchants must be specific, clear, and complete to constitute an offer. The consumer’s order is an acceptance, and only when both parties’ intentions are aligned can the contract be established. In this case, the product link contained informational flaws, abnormal pricing, and the merchant had already indicated the link was incomplete. The listed price was not the merchant’s true sales intention, so the contract was invalid.

Presiding judge Zhou Jie stated that the formation and validity of online shopping contracts depend on the Civil Code’s offer and acceptance rules, based on genuine mutual intent. Merchant’s product information must be specific and complete to constitute an offer; consumer’s order is an acceptance; only then can the contract be valid. Since the product link had informational flaws, abnormal pricing, and was not reflective of the merchant’s true sales intent, the contract was not established.

This case clarified the judicial standards for recognizing online shopping contracts, balancing consumer rights and e-commerce development, and guiding rational consumption and规范 of merchants, jointly maintaining a fair and orderly online trading environment. This internet-originated dispute was finally settled through online judicial procedures.

Internet justice safeguards the digital economy and clarifies rights boundaries

Cheng YuanYuan said, “The biggest feature of internet cases is that disputes occur online, and the entire process is conducted online.”

“Courts do not need clerks to produce court records on-site. Parties can participate in litigation from home via mobile apps or computers,” said Judge Zhang Bo of the Chengdu Internet Court. “The display of both plaintiff and defendant, evidence presentation, and court records are all shown separately, and the judge controls the entire process through video communication and mouse operation.”

As an important platform for digital judicial adjudication in Sichuan, the Chengdu Internet Court has been operating since April 2021, focusing on resolving internet-related disputes, using specialized adjudication to safeguard fairness in the digital space.

Cheng YuanYuan stated that the internet court is conducting thorough discussions on individual cases to define the boundaries between data and virtual property. With the Supreme People’s Court planning to include data and virtual property disputes as a primary case category in the second half of 2025, the court is exploring how these new categories will be practically handled.

“For example, virtual accounts, once considered virtual property, also contain friend information, customer data, chat records, and other transaction-related content. Whether these constitute data resources, business operation data, or still belong to virtual property is currently a matter of debate.”

As Sichuan’s “Digital Power Province” initiative advances, enterprises’ digital transformation presents new opportunities and new demands for judicial services. “We will keep pace with digital transformation, continue exploring new technologies and emerging cases, and introduce more high-quality judicial cases and rulings,” Cheng YuanYuan said. The Chengdu Internet Court will continue to innovate judicially, building a three-dimensional judicial barrier for the digital space, and providing strong judicial support for online governance and the development of the Chengdu-Chongqing twin-city economic circle.

Cheng YuanYuan added that, to date, the court has handled over 120,000 cases involving internet finance, online defamation, unfair competition, online shopping, and portrait rights infringement, forming a distinctive “online adjudication + technological empowerment + multi-channel dispute resolution” model, offering efficient, convenient, and fair judicial pathways for resolving internet disputes.

Source: The Paper News