Can express packages also be 'nested'? The inner and outer packaging of the product are printed on two different platforms, but it turns out that the online store has no source of goods for cross platform delivery! So, the e-commerce platform issued a breach of contract order for the online store for 74000 yuan, but the online store ran away... In the end, the platform had no choice but to sue the only shareholder of the store before its cancellation to the court, demanding payment of liquidated damages and reasonable expenses for rights protection. A few days ago, the Beijing Internet Court issued a verdict on this network service contract dispute case, believing that online stores used consumers' reputation guarantee for the platform to obtain illegitimate economic benefits by "illegal cross platform delivery without supply" for many times, disrupting market order, and sentenced an e-commerce platform to pay 74000 yuan as liquidated damages and 15000 yuan as reasonable expenses for rights protection. The case shows that the plaintiff is a certain e-commerce platform, a certain company is the operator of the involved store on the platform, and Xiao He was the sole shareholder of the company before its cancellation. The plaintiff received dozens of consumer complaints, all of which reflected that the goods purchased by the involved store were shipped from other e-commerce platforms, and the express packages had logos from other platforms. There were also many problems with the quality, logistics, and after-sales of the goods. The plaintiff believes that the involved store used its platform brand "cross platform shipping" to commit fraud against consumers and illegal use of consumer information. The plaintiff has issued 5 breach orders totaling 74000 yuan to a certain company, but the company has not fulfilled the obligations determined by the aforementioned breach orders, nor has it provided evidence to the contrary to the platform. The plaintiff later discovered that a certain company had been deregistered, so they sued the only shareholder before the deregistration, Xiao He, to the court, demanding that he pay a penalty of 74000 yuan and reasonable expenses for rights protection of 50000 yuan. After trial, the court found that the plaintiff had entered into a platform service agreement with a certain company. After logging in to the plaintiff's platform and applying to join, and checking the confirmation agreement, the company should fulfill its relevant obligations in accordance with the agreement and agree to abide by the agreement and related rules. In this case, according to the evidence in the case, it is known that a certain company, after opening a store at the plaintiff's place, took advantage of the reputation guarantee of consumers for the platform in terms of product quality, logistics services, after-sales services, etc., and repeatedly used the method of "illegal cross platform shipment without source of goods" to obtain improper economic benefits, disrupting market order and violating the relevant provisions of the platform agreement on breach of contract liability. In addition, a certain company has repeatedly improperly used consumer information for cross platform shipments, violating the relevant provisions of the "Merchant Disclaimer and Warranty" and attachments as stipulated in the agreement. The above-mentioned behavior of a certain company clearly violates the agreement and platform rules signed with the plaintiff, and has not provided evidence to prove that it does not have the above-mentioned breach of contract. Therefore, it should bear corresponding breach of contract liability. The court further held that the plaintiff has the right to impose penalties on a certain company for violations based on platform rules such as the Platform Online Service Agreement, and demand that it pay liquidated damages. Taking into account the degree of fault of a certain company and its impact on the operation order of the plaintiff's platform, there is no situation where the amount of breach of contract offered by the plaintiff is too high. In addition, the liquidation report of a certain company states that "if there are outstanding debts, shareholders promise to bear the responsibility according to their contribution ratio", and the defendant Xiao He, as the sole shareholder of the company, should repay the outstanding debts of the company. In the end, the court ruled that the defendant Xiao He should pay the plaintiff a penalty of 74000 yuan and reasonable expenses of 15000 yuan for rights protection to a certain e-commerce platform, and rejected the plaintiff's other claims. At present, the verdict of the case has come into effect. Yuan Jianhua, the Vice President of the First Comprehensive Trial Division of the Beijing Internet Court and the fourth level senior judge, said that the case affirmed the e-commerce platform's compliance with regulations to govern the operator's cross platform delivery behavior, guide the operator to provide consumers with high-quality goods, operate in good faith and legal compliance, and jointly maintain the order of online transactions. (New Society)