Recently, the Chengdu Internet court heard a lawsuit caused by a one cent refund. Li bought a dustpan set with a broom through the e-commerce platform of a Ministry of Commerce and trade in Jinniu District, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, and the postage is 14.2 yuan. As Li is a new user, after enjoying preferential activities such as red envelope deduction of the platform, courtesy of bank card payment and direct reduction of merchants, Li actually paid only 0.01 yuan, and the delivery address agreed by both parties is Shanghai. After placing the order, Mr. Li didn't receive the goods for a long time. By querying the logistics information, he found that the merchant sent the goods to Henan Province. Li contacted customer service for many times, but no reply was received. Li applied for customer service intervention on the e-commerce platform and asked for replacement items. But the merchant not only did not reissue, but also directly cancelled the order. The e-commerce platform then returned 0.01 yuan to Li's payment account. Li found that the previously received platform red envelopes and other related benefits could not be used again because they expired. Li believed that the behavior of the Ministry of Commerce and trade constituted consumption fraud, and sued and requested the merchant to return the payment of 14.2 yuan and compensate 500 yuan. After hearing the case, the court held that the evidence in this case can only prove that the merchant did not deliver goods according to the address provided by Li, and it cannot prove that the merchant deliberately concealed the true situation or deliberately released false information, causing Li to fall into a wrong understanding and make acts contrary to his true meaning. In other words, the existing evidence is not enough to determine that the merchant has the subjective intention of fraud. However, since the merchant failed to fulfill the delivery obligation as agreed, it has constituted a breach of contract. The 12.19 yuan reduced based on the platform red envelope, bank card payment courtesy and other concessions should be recognized as the loss caused to Li after the merchant rescinded the contract without authorization, while the 2 Yuan directly reduced by the merchant and the 0.01 yuan returned to the original account do not belong to Li's loss. Finally, the court ruled that the defendant's Ministry of Commerce and trade compensated Li for the loss of 12.19 yuan. (reporter Jiang Zhengyong, correspondent Yang Yuheng) (outlook new era)