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

Cover News Reporter Song Xiao

Only 1 Yuan

Can you drive home a car worth over 110,000 yuan?

This seemingly “heaven-sent” good fortune

Has sparked a dispute

On February 26, the reporter learned that in a case of online shopping dispute heard publicly at the Chengdu Railway Transport First Court (Chengdu Internet Court), the plaintiff Xiao Wen participated in a “1 Yuan Car Purchase” event on a certain e-commerce platform, but after successfully participating, was told by the merchant that it was just a “test link” and not a real car sale. This dispute triggered a heated debate over “whether the contract was formed,” and because it involved common elements of online shopping disputes, it caused a ripple effect.

“1 Yuan Car Purchase” Court Scene

Consumer lawsuit:

“1 Yuan Car Purchase” but the merchant refused 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 shopping dispute. During the trial, Xiao Wen still expressed some dissatisfaction.

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

He clicked the link and successfully paid. However, the joy did not last long—the merchant then 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 in the contract or be compensated for damages of 118,900 yuan.

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 believed that the “1 Yuan Car Purchase” activity was just a “test link” and not a real sale, and thus no contract was formed between the merchant and the consumer.

“This is a test link, not an official sales link,” the defendant’s representative pointed out. The product page purchased by Xiao Wen had many “defects”: for example, the product information showed “XX Qiyuan,” but the manufacturer listed a different car brand, and the description included “1.5 manual,” while the model involved was an electric vehicle with no manual transmission. “A rational consumer seeing these contradictory details should realize this is not a normal product link.”

The defendant further explained that the link was a test product uploaded by mistake in the store’s backend, and after discovering the order, staff immediately contacted the plaintiff to apologize and issue a refund. Based on the “E-commerce Platform User Registration Agreement” and the principle of genuine intent, the parties did not reach a consensus on the sale of a specific car model, so the contract was not valid.

Chengdu Internet Court Mobile Court and Legal Education Event

Dispute Focus:

Does the page information constitute an offer?

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

“Plaintiff claims to have verified the product information on the page, but tell me—can you be sure which car you are buying when a page shows a certain brand’s electric vehicle, and another mentions a fuel car with a manual transmission? Are you sure which one you bought?” asked the defendant’s representative, implying that Xiao Wen was aware of the abnormality in the link.

The plaintiff insisted that, as an ordinary consumer, he had no ability or obligation to identify technical errors in the backend. “The page has pictures, prices, and a ‘Buy Now’ button—this is a standard transaction interface.” Xiao Wen said that the merchant’s breach of promise, citing internal errors to refuse performance, seriously violated the principle of good faith and disrupted the transaction order.

As the trial progressed, the key facts of the case became clearer.

The court found that the product page displayed information such as color and model, but there were obvious flaws: mismatched manufacturer and brand, incorrect configuration descriptions, and a price 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 Xiao Wen placed the order, they had contacted him by phone to apologize and explain.

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

On February 26, 2026, after several months, the reporter learned that the case received a final judgment, and the court dismissed all of Xiao Wen’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 and complete to constitute an offer; the consumer’s order is an acceptance, and mutual intent is necessary for the contract to be formed. In this case, the product link had informational flaws, the price was abnormal, and the merchant had already indicated that the link was incomplete; the displayed price was not a genuine sales intent, so the contract was not valid. This case clarifies the judicial standards for online shopping contracts, balances consumer rights with e-commerce industry development, guides consumers to shop rationally, and encourages merchants to operate规范, jointly maintaining a fair and orderly online trading environment.

Source: Sichuan Daily