Abstract

The facts of car sales fraud cases are different, and the role of details in the identification of fraud cannot be ignored. Whether the operator constitutes fraud as he fails to fulfill his statutory obligation to inform consumers and violates consumers’ right to know or not, it is necessary to explore the relationship between these two. The judgment of this case provides a principled path for the future trial of similar cases: while judging whether the operator violates the statutory disclosure obligation constitutes fraud in the Consumer Protection Law should Focus on the following factors: whether it affects the fundamental purpose of consumer contracting, and whether there is a subjective intention to conceal relevant information. It has guiding significances for promoting the reasonable protection of automobile consumers’ right to know and the orderly development of the automobile industry.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call