The surge in online shopping has caused a lot of problems. Please collect this rights protection guide.
Year-end Promotion and New Year Festival … … Every year before the Spring Festival, it is the peak of online shopping for Chinese people. Consumers buy tight goods at low prices, and businesses "cheat" not to deliver goods. How to solve this problem? Imported food has no Chinese label, is it safe food according to the relevant laws of our country? After the electronic product is activated, what should the merchant do if he refuses to return it for seven days without reason? Please keep this online shopping rights protection guide.
Case 1
After placing an order, the merchant fails to deliver the goods according to the promised time. Can consumers claim compensation?
Xiao Lu bought a pair of running shoes in an online shop and spent 854 yuan. At the time of purchase, the seller in the product page advertised that "the order will be delivered on the same day before 16: 00! Support identification! " After placing the order, Xiao Lu waited for two weeks, but the logistics information of this transaction still didn’t move. During the period, Xiao Lu urged the customer service of the store many times and was blocked by the other party for various reasons. Xiao Lu asked the customer service whether the shoes were out of stock. The other party said that the system was broken recently and could not check the inventory, and told Xiao Lu: Please apply for a refund if you don’t deliver the goods within one week. Xiao Lu was very angry. When she bought it, the store claimed that the goods were in stock. According to the spot delivery rules of the shopping website, the goods should be delivered within 72 hours. Now the store has overdue delivery without any compensation measures. Xiao Lu believed that the seller violated the Consumer Protection Law, which constituted fraud, so he sued the owner Xiao Hu to the court, demanding that the defendant deliver the goods according to the contract, and compensated the plaintiff for 2,562 yuan, which was three times the purchase amount.
During the trial, Xiao Hu admitted that the goods were out of stock when the plaintiff bought them. At that time, the store staff did not modify the product page in time, which led to a major misunderstanding between the two sides, and his behavior should not constitute fraud.
After trial, the court held that Xiao Lu purchased the goods involved in the online shop operated by Xiao Hu, and the two parties established an online shopping contract relationship. The store promised in the product page that "the order will be delivered on the same day before 16: 00! Support identification! " After Xiao Lu placed an order and paid the corresponding payment, Xiao Hu failed to fulfill the delivery obligation according to the time agreed in the contract, which constituted a breach of contract. And marked "delivery on the same day before 16: 00! Support identification! " The word "Xiao Lu" is enough to attract consumers’ attention and willingness to buy. After Xiao Lu placed the order, Xiao Hu and the store customer service not only failed to actively communicate and explain the shortage situation, but covered up the fact of shortage for other reasons. Xiao Hu deliberately made up the inventory, and his behavior constituted fraud. Therefore, Xiao Lu asked Xiao Hu to bear the claim of three times the compensation price, and the court supported it. The court finally ruled that Xiao Hu fulfilled the delivery obligation to Xiao Lu; Pay compensation of 2562 yuan to Xiao Lu. After the verdict was pronounced, neither party appealed, and the case has now come into effect.
[Judge’s statement]
According to Article 577 of the Civil Code, if a party fails to perform its contractual obligations or fails to perform the contractual obligations in conformity with the agreement, it shall be liable for breach of contract such as continuing to perform, taking remedial measures or compensating for losses. In this case, Xiao Hu’s failure to perform the delivery obligation constitutes a breach of contract, and Xiao Lu has the right to ask him to bear the responsibility of continuing to perform. According to Article 55 of the Law on the Protection of Consumers’ Rights and Interests, if a business operator commits fraud in providing goods or services, it shall increase the compensation for the losses it has suffered according to the requirements of consumers, and the amount of the increase in compensation shall be three times the price of the goods purchased by consumers or the cost of receiving services. If the amount of the increase in compensation is less than that of 500 yuan, it shall be 500 yuan. In this case, Xiao Hu informed the consumer that the goods involved could be delivered on the same day, which made Xiao Lu make the wrong intention to buy the goods. There was fraud, and Xiao Lu had the right to claim compensation of three times the purchase price.
When buying goods on the online shopping platform, if the merchant fails to fulfill the delivery obligation according to the agreed time, it is a breach of contract, and consumers can ask the merchant to bear the liability for breach of contract such as continuing to perform, taking remedial measures or compensating for losses. If there are fraudulent acts such as fictitious inventory to induce consumers to conclude contracts with them, consumers can complain and report to the relevant departments, or bring a lawsuit to the court, claiming that the merchants should pay punitive damages in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Law.
travel to watch industry
Imported food has no Chinese label. Can consumers ask for a refund?
Ms. Gu bought 4 boxes of Japanese imported food in a purchasing online shop, with a total price of 8,800 yuan. After Ms. Gu placed the order, the store arranged the delivery. Upon arrival, Ms. Gu opened a box to eat, only to find that the product was not labeled in Chinese, and it was illegal food that had not been imported through entry inspection and quarantine. Ms. Hou Gu communicated with the merchant in the hope of returning a refund. The customer service of the store only agreed to return the remaining three boxes on the grounds that the outer packaging of one box of goods had been demolished, which affected the sales. After negotiation failed, Ms. Gu sued Geely Trading Company, the operator of the online store, to the court, asking Geely Trading Company to refund the four boxes of Japanese imported food and bear 10 times compensation of 88,000 yuan.
The court held through trial that an online shopping contract relationship was established between Ms. Gu and Geely Trading Company. Because the goods involved are not labeled with Chinese labels and the production date marked in Chinese, which is enough to affect food safety, it belongs to safe food that does not meet the relevant laws and regulations of China. Geely Trading Company, as the seller of the goods involved, should be aware of the food safety standards of related products, and its sales behavior violates the Food Safety Law. Ms. Gu’s claim that the defendant Geely Commercial Company should refund the goods and bear ten times the compensation is well-founded in the law and should be supported. The court finally ruled that Ms. Gu returned 4 boxes of Japanese imported food involved in Geely Trading Company; Geely Trading Company returned Ms. Gu’s purchase price of 8800 yuan and paid compensation of 88000 yuan. Neither side appealed after the verdict, and the case has now come into effect.
[Judge’s statement]
According to Article 97 of the Food Safety Law, imported prepackaged foods and food additives should have Chinese labels; If there should be a manual according to law, there should also be a Chinese manual. Labels and instructions shall conform to the provisions of this Law and other relevant Chinese laws and administrative regulations and the requirements of national food safety standards, and shall specify the origin of food and the name, address and contact information of domestic agents. Prepackaged foods does not have Chinese labels and instructions, or the labels and instructions do not conform to the provisions of this article, and shall not be imported. According to Article 148 of the Food Safety Law, if a consumer produces food that does not meet the food safety standards or manages food that he knows does not meet the food safety standards, in addition to demanding compensation for losses, he can also demand compensation of 10 times the price or 3 times the loss from the producer or operator; If the amount of increased compensation is less than that of 1000 yuan, it shall be 1000 yuan. However, there are defects in the labels and instructions of food that do not affect food safety and will not mislead consumers. In this case, Geely Trading Company knew that the goods involved were imported goods without Chinese labels and did not meet the food safety standards, but still sold them. Ms. Gu had the right to claim that the defendant returned the goods for a refund and compensated for 10 times the price.
Food safety is no small matter, and business operators should fulfill the inspection obligations of imported food and avoid selling imported food without Chinese labels. When consumers buy imported foods that do not meet food safety standards, such as those without Chinese labels, they should eat them carefully, and if necessary, they can claim compensation of 10 times the price or 3 times the loss from the seller.
Case 3
The electronic product has been activated. Can consumers claim to return it for 7 days without reason?
Kobayashi is an electronic product enthusiast. During the "Double Eleven" event, he bought a 4399 yuan mobile phone in an online store. After the arrival, he activated the mobile phone according to the instructions. The next day, Kobayashi thought that the screen color of the mobile phone was unnatural and bad for the eyes, so he applied for 7 days and had no reason to return it. The store customer service refused because the mobile phone was turned on and activated. After many unsuccessful negotiations, Kobayashi sued the store’s operator, Youguang Technology Company, to the court, demanding a refund of 4399 yuan.
Youguang Technology Company argued that the goods involved had been activated, which led to a large depreciation of the value of the goods. According to the screenshot of the order, Kobayashi was reminded on the order payment page that "the activated digital products cannot be returned for seven days without reason if there is no quality problem", so the 7-day unreasonable return rule is not applicable to the goods involved.
After trial, the court held that the activation of electronic products such as mobile phones has a great impact on their value, and the 7-day unreasonable return rule may not be applied, provided that the seller must set up a significant confirmation procedure in the necessary process of commodity sales. In this case, the plaintiff had activated the mobile phone involved before applying for a return. Although the defendant Youguang Technology Company clearly informed it on the payment page, it failed to submit evidence to prove that it set up a confirmation procedure for the plaintiff’s single purchase behavior in the sales process, so the defendant could not refuse the plaintiff to apply for a return for 7 days without reason. After the verdict was pronounced, the defendant appealed to the optical technology company, and the original judgment was upheld in the second instance.
[Judge’s statement]
According to Article 25 of the Law on the Protection of Consumers’ Rights and Interests, when an operator sells goods through the Internet, television, telephone or mail order, consumers have the right to return the goods within 7 days from the date of receipt, without giving reasons, except for the following goods: (1) The goods are customized by consumers; (2) Fresh and perishable; (3) Digital commodities such as audio-visual products and computer software downloaded online or unpacked by consumers; (4) newspapers and periodicals delivered. Except for the commodities listed in the preceding paragraph, other commodities that are not suitable for return according to the nature of the commodities and confirmed by consumers at the time of purchase are not suitable for unreasonable return. Article 7 of the Interim Measures for the 7-day unreasonable return of goods purchased online stipulates that the 7-day unreasonable return rule may not be applied to the following goods that are confirmed by consumers at the time of purchase: (2) goods whose value is greatly depreciated after activation or trial; The provisions of Article 20, in line with the provisions of Article 7 of these Measures, online commodity sellers shall set up significant confirmation procedures in the necessary process of commodity sales for consumers to confirm the single purchase behavior. If there is no confirmation, the online commodity seller shall not refuse to return the goods for 7 days without reason.
Due to the particularity of online shopping, the law gives consumers the right to regret for seven days. However, in practice, some platforms and businesses issue "overlord clauses" without authorization, rejecting consumers’ reasonable return applications. If you encounter the problem of "difficulty in returning goods" during shopping, don’t be "led by the nose" by merchants or platforms. If the goods do not fall within the scope of exemption from the 7-day unreasonable return rule, you can complain to the relevant departments or protect your interests through litigation. At the same time, consumers should be reminded that 7 days’ unreasonable return does not mean 7 days’ unconditional return. According to the Consumer Protection Law, the goods returned by consumers should remain intact, and the goods of special categories and those confirmed by consumers as unsuitable for return at the time of purchase are not applicable to 7 days’ unreasonable return.
(The characters, companies, shops and brands in the text are all pseudonyms.)
Text/Yang Qing (Beijing Haidian Court)