1 Yuan "Flash Sale" of an 110,000 Yuan Car? The Buyer Purchased It, but the Seller Claimed It Was a "Test Link" — The Court Ruled

Cover News Reporter Song Xiao

Can you buy a car worth over 110,000 yuan for just 1 yuan? This seemingly “heaven-sent” deal has sparked a dispute.

On February 26, Cover News learned that in a public trial of an online sales dispute at the Chengdu Railway Transport First Court (Chengdu Internet Court), the plaintiff Xiao Wen participated in a “1 Yuan Car Purchase” event on an e-commerce platform. However, after successfully participating, he was told by the merchant that it was just a “test link” and not an actual car sale. This dispute led to a heated debate over whether a contract was formed, and because it involved common elements of online shopping disputes, it caused a widespread reaction.

Scene from the “1 Yuan Car Purchase” Trial

Consumer’s Complaint:

“1 Yuan Car Purchase” but Merchant Refuses to Deliver

“I saw such a big promotion online, I thought it was a benefit for consumers from the platform.” In October 2025, the Chengdu Railway Transport First Court (Chengdu Internet Court) visited Sichuan Normal University Law School to publicly hear a case of online sales dispute. During the trial, Xiao Wen, the plaintiff, still expressed some dissatisfaction.

Xiao Wen described that while browsing on an e-commerce platform, he found a car listed in an official store of a car company with a price marked as “1 yuan.”

He clicked the link and successfully placed an order and paid. However, his joy was short-lived—soon after, the merchant refused to deliver citing a “system error,” only apologizing via customer service and suggesting a refund.

“This is a breach of contract!” Xiao Wen’s lawyer emphasized that as a professional merchant, the defendant should be responsible for its display behavior on the platform. Trusting the platform and the merchant, Xiao Wen invested time and effort and should receive the vehicle as agreed or be compensated 118,900 yuan for damages.

Chengdu Internet Court Mobile Court and Legal Education Event

Merchant’s Explanation:

It Was a “Test Link,” Not a Real “Car Sale”

In response to Xiao Wen’s claim, the defendant, a certain car company, offered a different explanation. They argued that the “1 Yuan Car Purchase” event was merely a “test link” and not an actual sale, so no contract was formed between the merchant and the consumer.

“This is a test link, not an official sales link,” the defendant’s representative stated. They pointed out several flaws on the product page: for example, the product information showed “XX Qiyuan,” but the manufacturer listed a different car brand; the description included “1.5 manual,” while the model involved was an electric vehicle with no manual transmission. “A rational consumer seeing these conflicting details should realize this isn’t a normal product link.”

The defendant further explained that the link was uploaded by mistake during backend testing, and once the staff discovered the order, they immediately contacted the plaintiff to apologize and issued a refund. Based on the “E-commerce Platform User Registration Agreement” and the principle of genuine intent under civil law, the parties did not reach a consensus on the sale of a specific car model, so the contract was not established.

Chengdu Internet Court Mobile Court and Legal Education Event

Dispute Focus:

Is the Page Information Sufficient to Constitute an Offer?

During the trial, both sides debated whether the “product page” constituted a clear offer.

“The plaintiff claims to have verified the product information on the page, but tell me—if a page shows a certain brand of electric vehicle, and also mentions a manual transmission only available in fuel cars, can you be sure which car you are buying?” asked the defendant’s representative, implying that Xiao Wen was aware of the abnormality in the link.

Xiao Wen insisted that, as an ordinary consumer, he had no ability or obligation to distinguish backend technical errors. “The page has pictures, prices, and a ‘Buy Now’ button—that’s a standard transaction interface.” He argued that the merchant’s breach of contract, citing internal errors as justification, seriously violates the principles of good faith and damages the order of transactions.

As the trial progressed, the key facts became clearer.

The court found that the product page displayed information such as color and model, but there were obvious flaws: the manufacturer did not match the brand, the configuration description was incorrect, and the price was significantly lower than the normal market price. Regarding why the order showed “warehouse processing,” the defendant explained it was a backend mistake, and confirmed that after the plaintiff placed the order, they had contacted him by phone to apologize and explain.

As one of the defendants, the e-commerce platform also clarified during the trial that it should not bear joint liability as a platform and requested the dismissal of all claims. Due to significant disagreements, the defendant refused mediation on the spot. The dispute triggered by the “1 Yuan Car Purchase” was not adjudicated that day.

On February 26, 2026, months later, Cover News learned that the case received a final judgment, and the court dismissed all of the plaintiff’s claims.

The presiding judge, Zhou Jie, pointed out that the formation and effectiveness of an online shopping contract should be based on the offer and acceptance rules under the Civil Code, with genuine mutual intent as a prerequisite. The merchant’s product information must be specific, clear, and complete to constitute an offer. The consumer’s order is an acceptance; only when both parties’ expressions of intent match can a contract be formed. In this case, the product link contained informational flaws, the price was abnormal, and the merchant had already indicated that the link was incomplete; the listed price was not a genuine sales intention, so no contract was established. This case clarified the judicial standards for online shopping contracts, balancing consumer rights and e-commerce development, guiding consumers to shop rationally, and encouraging merchants to operate lawfully, jointly maintaining a fair and orderly online trading environment.

(Note: characters like Xiao Wen and others are pseudonyms.)