The "Taobao Incident" Is Hard To Avoid.

Recently, due to revision

The anti Taobao alliance and its supporters firmly believe that the behavior of the anti Taobao alliance is subject to the rule framework of Taobao mall. Its purpose is to safeguard its own rights and interests. Small and medium-sized sellers have the freedom to express their dissatisfaction, and their actions should be supported by social understanding and law.

Admittedly, respecting and protecting the freedom of the people is an important mission of the law, and is also one of the values pursued by law.

By analogy, the anti Taobao alliance really enjoys the freedom to express dissatisfaction, and the law should also protect it.

However, is freedom equal to wanton? Or is freedom free from any restrictions? The answer is obvious.

The freedom enjoyed by any person shall be limited by not infringing upon the lawful rights and interests of others.

In the Taobao incident, the "anti Taobao alliance" used the rules of the mall to implement the operation of "making goods, giving bad reviews, and refusing to pay", aiming to force Taobao mall to compromise and concession.

Fighting within the rules seems to be able to seek a legitimate basis for their actions, but the rules are not laws in themselves, nor are the acts within the rules appropriate.

Therefore, although the "anti Taobao alliance" expresses its dissatisfaction despite its inherent rights and freedoms, if it exercises such rights and freedoms while causing loss of interests to other merchants, it will obviously surpass the reasonable boundary of the exercise of rights.

According to the contract law of our country, buyers take pictures of goods in online shopping, that is, contract relationship with sellers.

On the surface, the anti Taobao alliance did not violate the specific rules set in the contract. However, the anti Taobao alliance actually violated the basic principles of private law.

The general principles of civil law and the contract law clearly stipulate that the parties should abide by the principle of good faith in exercising their rights and performing their obligations.

The "anti Taobao alliance" is a malicious attack using the loopholes in Taobao mall rules, which has clearly violated the principle of good faith.

In view of the fact that the principle of good faith can be directly applied to specific cases, the right to be abused by small businesses will not be protected by law.

In other words, small businesses should still fulfill their contractual obligations, unless they have a breach of contract, otherwise they will not have the right to apply for a refund.

Therefore, the main responsibility of the Taobao incident lies in the "anti Taobao alliance" side, but the error of the anti Taobao alliance is not that it has given vent to its dissatisfaction, but because of its improper way of fighting.

However, if it is determined that all the faults of the Taobao incident lie in the "anti Taobao alliance" formed by small and medium-sized sellers, it is rather one-sided and hasty.

The reason why many netizens complain about small and medium-sized sellers is because they believe that the "riot" is a small and medium-sized seller's frustration, mainly from the irresponsible Taobao mall.

In modern society, enterprises, as the main body of market economy, play an increasingly important role. But at the same time, the existence of some enterprises in a strong position also makes the market pactions which are adhering to the principle of voluntariness lose the foundation of equality. Therefore, the society begins to appeal to enterprises to undertake social responsibilities, which requires enterprises to consider the interests of the stakeholders of enterprises in pursuit of maximizing their profits.

Unfortunately, in the "Taobao incident", Taobao mall used its own strong position to arbitrarily change rules and improve access threshold, seriously violating the survival environment of the vast number of small and medium-sized sellers.

As we all know, "Taobao" plays an important role in the field of electronic commerce. Its decisions often involve the interests of many consumers and merchants directly. Therefore, we should be cautious when making decisions, especially when it comes to pricing.

At present, due to the lack of relevant legal system support, stakeholders can not directly participate in pricing, so that a benign pricing interaction mechanism can not be formed.

In this regard, the legislator must respond as soon as possible.

Of course, legislators must consider the way and scope of stakeholders' participation in pricing when formulating relevant laws and regulations, especially paying attention to balancing the interests between enterprises and stakeholders, which can fully ensure the normal profits of enterprises and fully protect the legitimate rights and interests of stakeholders.

In addition, this "Taobao incident" also reflects the lag of the law.

With the progress of social science and technology, e-commerce has made great progress in recent years, and has gradually become an important part of people's daily life. However, many new problems and new situations generated by e-commerce have gone beyond the horizon of traditional legal theory.

The appearance of "Taobao incident" not only exposes the defects and deficiencies of the legal system and management system in the field of e-commerce in China, but also indicates that it is urgent for professional legal personages to clarify the attribution of responsibilities and resolve interests disputes in the background of lagging legal system.

Modern economic laws should not only provide people with a set of market trading rules to guide people to trade smoothly, but also establish and maintain a fair competition order, create wealth and obtain equity for all subjects.