10月10日，杭州互联网法院通过网上诉讼平台，对原告陈某与被告浙江某通信科技有限公司网络购物合同纠纷一案进行公开宣判，这也是该法院宣判的首例比特币“挖矿机”纠纷。
& nbsp; On 10 October, the Hangzhou Internet Court, through an online litigation platform, issued a public judgement in the case of the plaintiff, Chen Yiu, in dispute with the defendant, Zhejiang Communications and Technology Ltd., on the Internet shopping contract, which was also the first case of the Court's judgement in Bitcoin&ldquao; the miner & rdquao; and the dispute.
2018年1月，原告在被告公司网站预购20台比特币挖矿机，并且预付全部货款。原告以央行等部门要求停止各类代币发行融资活动为由，提出比特币专用生产机器“挖矿机”的交易涉嫌违法，并且消费者有权自收到货物之日起7日内无理由退货，要求被告返还全部货款61.2万元并且支付利息。经审理，法院认定原告向被告浙江某通信科技有限公司购买比特币“挖矿机”合同合法有效，驳回原告全部诉讼请求。
In January 2018, the plaintiff pre-purchased 20 bitcoin excavators on the defendant’s company’s website and prepaid the entire amount of the goods in advance. The plaintiff argued that the transactions of the Bitcoin special-purpose production machines & ldquo; the diggers & rdquo; and the consumer had the right to return the goods without cause within seven days from the date of receipt of the goods, asking the defendant to return the entire amount of $6.12 million and to pay interest. After a hearing, the court found that the plaintiff had purchased bitcoins & ldquao from the defendant, a telecommunications and technology company, Zhejiang Ltd.; that the mine digger & rdquao; and that the contract was valid and rejected all the plaintiff’s claims.
杭州互联网法院认为，比特币是互联网技术发展后在互联网环境中生成的虚拟物品，而比特币“挖矿机”则是专门用于运算生成比特币的机器设备。法院经审理后认为，原、被告通过互联网以数据电文形式订立的比特币“挖矿机”买卖合同依法成立。虽然比特币不具有法偿性与强制性等货币属性，但比特币具有商品属性。本案交易标的物“挖矿机”，是专门用于运算生成比特币的机器设备，本身具有财产属性。
The Hangzhou Internet Court held that Bitcoin was a virtual item generated in the Internet environment after the development of Internet technology, while Bitcoin“ miner” and machine equipment specifically designed to generate bitcoin. The Court considered that the original, defendant's use of the Internet as a form of data message was Bitcoin“ diggers” the purchase and sale contract was established by law. Although Bitcoin did not have monetary attributes, such as legality and mandatoryity, Bitco had a commercial character.
虽然央行等多部委曾发布公告禁止代币发行融资活动，但我国法律、行政法规并未禁止比特币的生产、持有和合法流转，也未禁止比特币挖矿机的生产与买卖。故原告主张买卖比特币“挖矿机”违法的理由不能成立，案涉合同依法有效。此外，7天无理由退货制度的设立，是为解决消费者在网络购物等特定交易领域由于信息不对称而导致的意思表示不真实的问题。本案中，原告陈某基于签订合同后研究金融政策而非商品信息不对称的事由主张解除合同，不符合7天无理由退货制度的适用初衷。基于上述原因，原告主张被告退还货款并支付利息的诉讼请求缺乏事实和法律依据，法院不予支持。
Although several ministries, such as the Central Bank, have issued circulars prohibiting the issuance of funds in exchange, our laws and administrative regulations do not prohibit the production, possession and legal flow of Bitcoin or the production and sale of bitcoin mining machines. The plaintiff therefore claims that the sale of bitcoin “ miner & & rdquo; the illegal grounds are unfounded and the contract is valid. Moreover, the seven-day unjustified return system was established to address the lack of authenticity caused by information asymmetries among consumers in specific areas of transactions such as Internet shopping. In this case, the plaintiff states that a matter based on a post-contract study of financial policy rather than commodity information asymmetrics is subject to the original intent of the seven-day unjustified return regime. For these reasons, the plaintiff argued that the defendant’s claim to have refunded the goods and to pay interest was not supported by the court.
来源： 浙江日报 | 作者：吴振宇 吴巍 | 责编：张云松 审核：张渊
新闻投稿：184042016@qq.com 新闻热线：13157110107
注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群
打开微信扫一扫
添加客服
进入交流群
发表评论