An Analysis On Dispute Between Yu Mou Vs Alipay,Fan Mou Vs Alipay And Zhang Mou Vs Alipay Network Service Contract

Nowadays,online shopping is becoming extremely popular and Alipay plays an important role in it.It deals with the trust issue between the seller and the buyer,which aims at protecting the virtual transactions.According to related data,disputes happen from time to time,large in quantity and different in type.The lack of legislation in practice area makes it hard for the court to judge.Yu dadi vs Alipay,Fan qi vs Alipay and Zhang shipeng vs Alipay are three typical cases of this kind,and both differences and similarities exist in the facts and abbreviature of adjudication of these three cases.Based on the similarities and differences,three disputed issues are concluded.Firstly,is Alipay obligated to the guarantee of the transaction security?Secondly,the nature and effectiveness of Alipay Service Agreement.Thirdly,how to define the responsibility of the parities?As for the definition of "guarantee transaction function",controversy has long existed in the academic circle.Through the deep analysis of the operation mode,the essential elements of guarantee liability prescribed in Guaranty Law of PRC,and the legal status of Alipay,a conclusion can be made that Alipay is not responsible for substantive examination of transaction.Meanwhile,the nature and effectiveness of Alipay Service Agreement and other similar e-contract,as well as the the difficulties in rights protection,have been a headache in practice area.As for this type of innominate contracts,the current practice is firstly defining the legal relationship between both parties and then applying the similar provisions in contract law.Based on the comparative analysis in theories among the academic circle,commission contract relationship seems the correct and reasonable answer.Combining the three cases with related judgements,we can see that provisions of standard contract in Contract Law merely is not enough for us to define the effectiveness of the previously mentioned contracts.Alipay,the rule maker,may make provisions unfair to consumers based on its dominant position.Therefore,at the present legislation structure,the effectiveness of the said contracts should be based on the specific contents,let’s say the micro-angel,instead of a macro way.In addition,all these three cases are filed by the users in the name of default.This article analyses whether the parties has taken corresponding responsibilities and the burden of proof,and then clearly defines the responsibilities of Alipay in different cases.A deep and thorough analysis and comment is made through combination of theory and practice as well as parallel comparison,hoping to provide some clues for the court in the later cases.In the end,some suggestions are made to help solve this kind of delimma.For example,improving the legislation to define the nature of Alipay guarantee transaction,applying standard management to e-contract,reversing the burden of proof and improving the related laws and regulations.