Billiard equipment listed at 317,000 won instead of 3.17 million won

'Not a material error,' court says

Seller's intended price was never communicated to buyer

A secondhand trading platform [Getty Images Bank]
A secondhand trading platform [Getty Images Bank]

A court has ruled that a seller on a secondhand trading platform cannot unilaterally cancel a completed transaction even after accidentally listing items at one-tenth the intended price.

Judge Noh Min-sik of Seoul Central District Court's Civil Division 35 recently dismissed a lawsuit filed by seller A against buyer B, who had purchased billiard equipment through a used-goods platform.

The dispute began with a billiard equipment transaction on a secondhand platform in March last year. A posted a listing offering the items for 317,000 won ($205), and B immediately expressed intent to purchase everything.

The goods were delivered and payment was made within a day, completing the transaction. Only after receiving payment did A realize the listing had been posted at 317,000 won — one-tenth of the intended price of 3.17 million won ($2,050).

A argued that the contract contained a material error in its essential terms and sought to cancel the transaction. Under South Korea's Civil Act, a declaration of intent may be voided if it involves a mistake in an essential part of a legal act.

A demanded the return of the goods, but the two sides could not reach an agreement. B proposed either paying 500,000 won in compensation or having A repurchase the items, but no deal was struck and the matter went to court.

The court rejected A's argument, finding that B had no way of knowing A had originally intended to sell the items for 3.17 million won.

Citing Supreme Court precedent, the court determined that A's mistake was not a "material error" that would allow cancellation of a contract under the law, but rather a "motivational error" — a mistake relating to the background or reason behind the declaration of intent.

"To cancel a declaration of intent on the grounds of a motivational error, the motive must have been communicated to the other party and recognized as part of the contract," the court said. "Based on the evidence submitted, it cannot be concluded that B was informed that the intended selling price was 3.17 million won."

The court dismissed A's claim for the return of the goods, ruling that the secondhand transaction could not be voided. The case also highlighted the importance of sellers verifying prices, quantities and delivery terms before posting listings on fast-moving platforms such as secondhand trading apps.


kwater@heraldcorp.com