How To Understand "Sales Rebate" And "Rebate"

Recently, SAIC, Ministry of transport and Quality testing The General Administration issued a joint circular calling for the 4S service providers to stop collecting the rebates and commissions of the sellers when they handle the mortgage and purchase insurance for the consumers, and to identify such acts as commercial bribes. Not long ago, DELL company was also accused of accounting fraud by Intel because of Intel's rebate, and finally fined 100 million dollars for the settlement. The legality of the marketing behavior such as rebate and rebate has caused a lot of controversy.
There are two problems in the accounting fraud charges of DELL. First, it is not a rule to return. Do business Income? Second, does DELL's profit in those quarters depend heavily on the return point rather than the internal cost control as he claims? On the second point, the information revealed by the investigation shows that DELL does seem to have conceal the truth from investors, so it is not too bad to be fined. However, it is not improper to include the upstream manufacturers' return points into the main revenue. Upstream rebates, commissions, bonuses and so on are all part of the overall price arrangement of the two parties, and are also not considered by the DELL in anticipation of operating income.

　　 Sale Kickbacks and rebates are widely used in marketing and pricing strategies. Whether bribery is constituted depends on the motives and consequences of payment. The premise of any bribery is the existence of principal-agent relationship. The third way agents pay the consideration, in exchange for their breach of the principal agent obligation to benefit the briber, and at the same time damage the interests of the client; therefore, the victim of the bribery act is a client, when the client is a voter or a sovereign, when the state power is entrusted, it is administrative bribery, and when the client is the employer, the agent is a director, an employee, a lawyer, an accountant or a contract contractor, and so on, entrusted by business affairs, that is, commercial bribery.

This premise is that although the twenty-second section of the anti unfair competition law and the Interim Provisions of the SAIC on banning commercial bribery are not expressly expressed, it is self-evident. If the Commission is paid by the principal to the agent, or the seller's payment to the buyer is also defined as a commercial bribe, it is ridiculous. Agents should always pay for their agency services, such as commission or rebate or rebate. It is not important that the seller's return is actually a delayed price discount.

When 4S stores sell insurance and mortgage products to consumers, there is no principal-agent relationship between them. The 4S store is the sales agent of the insurance company and the loan bank. The refund and commission paid by the latter are the reward for the latter agency relationship. If the return point is directly paid to the 4S shop, there will be no possibility of bribery. Unless the refund is paid to the employees of the 4S shop, the latter violates the agency obligations of their employers to form a commercial bribe.

The insurance product, while the shop side made an obvious adverse selection for the customer after accepting the Commission of an insurance agent, at that time, the store was easy to get into the suspicion of accepting commercial bribe. However, in reality, it is unlikely that the relationship between the 4S store and the customers will be formed. The common situation is that the salesmen of the shop will have some hints, boast, boast or inducement, and pretend to stand by your position for your consideration, and take the initiative to entrust some transaction procedures. However, there is a significant difference between these sales behaviors and the commitment and establishing a principal-agent relationship. The latter requires a clearer meaning of the two sides, and there will always be a written entrustment agreement. Of course, there is a situation that may constitute a bribe: if the client entrustment the 4S shop to choose the best price / performance ratio for them.

As an insurance agent, the seller has no obligation to disclose to the customer whether he has received or received any commission. Prior to being denied and afterwards knowing that the Commission exists, it may cause some customers to feel cheated, but this does not constitute a commercial fraud. Because this lie does not involve any transaction involving the customer, the Commission is due to the agency relationship that the customer has not participated in. It is like a delivery man who delivers you fast food to tell you that he has earned only 10 Fen of the errand. This statement will not constitute fraud unless it is true or not, unless he tells you that the fast food is being done now, but it is actually a cold overnight meal.

As consumers, there is no interest in consumers' enthusiasm for selling third party products. It is childish and lack of common sense to consider their customers completely and not to make profits for themselves. The law does not need to provide protection for such naive expectations. The obvious false rhetoric does not constitute fraud, because they should not have been trusted. For example, many businesses will claim a big sale at a loss. In the last three days, the big clearance will actually earn a lot and the clearance will never be finished. If courts always accept fraud litigation against such propaganda, they are actually allowing consumers to give up their common sense, prudence and judgment in trading behavior.