the performance of live streaming anchors is declining. who will pay for the backlog of inventory?
2024-09-12
한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina
it was originally thought that the live broadcast of the anchor would sell well during the double eleven shopping festival, but the sales volume dropped sharply, far below the sales expectations, resulting in a large amount of unsalable inventory. for this reason, the manufacturer zhang sued the court, demanding that the anchor guo pay more than 1.6 million yuan in processing fees. recently, the people's court of tongzhou district, nantong city, heard this processing contract dispute and finally ruled that the anchor guo should bear 80% of the responsibility and compensate zhang more than 1.32 million yuan.
in july 2021, anchor guo signed a cooperation agreement with manufacturer zhang, stipulating that zhang would be responsible for production according to the fabrics and processes confirmed by both parties, and guo would be responsible for selling the inventory of cooperatively produced products, and the product supply price would be determined by negotiation between the two parties. afterwards, guo live-streamed and sold goods for zhang, with monthly sales exceeding 700,000 yuan in the first two months. seeing that the products were so popular, the morale of both parties was high. guo urged zhang on wechat to "speed up production, boss", and zhang also said, "speed up production so that the boss lady can sell comfortably."
however, both parties guessed the beginning but not the end. the sales of the live broadcast on double eleven dropped sharply, and finally settled at more than 24,000 yuan, which was nearly 30 times lower than the sales in the previous two months. zhang then urged guo to sell the goods quickly, but guo refused to admit that the goods were customized by him.
in august 2022, guo's employees signed the statistical sheet issued by zhang, and noted that "the inventory has been counted correctly". the statistical sheet stated the name, quantity and amount of the inventory products. due to the poor sales volume of the inventory products, guo also reduced the live broadcast time of the product. after another year of live sales, by the time zhang sued, the remaining inventory was worth more than 1.6 million yuan.
during the trial, guo argued that the cooperation agreement signed by the two parties was not actually implemented. he was only a sales agent, not a buyer or a commissioned processor. he never confirmed the product style and quantity. although it was true that he urged production, zhang blindly produced despite knowing that the sales volume had declined, so the responsibility lies with zhang. the sales volume declined during the double eleven period mainly because the live broadcast account was blocked for involving sensitive words and prohibited operations. however, the two parties did not make any agreement on the number and frequency of live broadcasts. if the products sell well, they will broadcast more, and if they don’t sell well, they will broadcast less. he is still live streaming for zhang, so he should not be held responsible.
after the trial, the court held that the relevant product styles were jointly selected by both parties, and zhang informed guo of the production plan. combining the cooperation agreement with the wechat chat records of both parties, it can be determined that the relationship between the two parties is neither a contractual relationship of delivering products and paying remuneration, nor a commissioned relationship of being responsible for sales, but a cooperative relationship in which both parties confirm the product pattern and fabric, zhang produces it, and guo sells it.
judging from the actual sales amount, inventory amount and previous sales trends of both parties, the materials purchased by zhang to fulfill the contract were in line with the sales expectations at the time. the reason for the product inventory was due to guo's poor sales, and guo should bear the sales responsibility for the inventory products. however, zhang's purchase of too many raw materials was also one of the factors causing the inventory, and guo should bear 80% of the responsibility at his discretion. the final judgment was that the cooperation agreement between the two parties was terminated, guo compensated zhang with more than 1.32 million yuan, and zhang returned the inventory products of equal value. after the judgment, guo appealed, and the nantong intermediate people's court upheld the original judgment.
judge's opinion
with the development of the internet and the live broadcast industry, live broadcasting has become an important sales model, and live broadcast hosts have become the object of pursuit by many businesses. however, disputes between merchants and hosts are easily caused by vague agreements on cooperation models and unclear distribution of rights and obligations. the presiding judge of the case reminded that when the two parties enter into a written agreement, it is recommended to clarify their respective rights and obligations, especially the need to make agreements on product selection, pricing, copyright and inventory handling to avoid subsequent disputes. correspondent guan zhong
proofreading faye wong
