In Changchun, Jilin Province, a woman came to a clothing store and bought a red **. Although ** is not particularly expensive, but soon after, she found the shopkeeper and said that ** did not fit, her thighs were a little tight, and she hoped to be able to return or replace one.
The lady said to the shopkeeper that she didn't really wear the **, so why can't she return it? The shopkeeper responded that the clothes she tried on cannot be returned, because she can't return the returned clothes.
However, the lady insisted that she had only tried it on and had not actually worn it, and that even if it could not be returned, a replacement would be acceptable.
However, the owner insisted that since the lady had tried it on, she could not agree to return it because the close-fitting garment could not be re-sold.
In the end, the lady directly threw the ** to the shopkeeper, saying that she didn't want it, and left the store.
**Is this intimate clothing suitable for 7-day no-reason returns? According to the provisions of China's "Consumer Rights Protection", operators use the Internet, television, mail order and other means to sell goods, and consumers have the right to return the goods within seven days from the date of receipt without giving reasons. However, the following goods are excluded: custom-made by consumers; fresh and perishable; **Or digital goods such as audio-visual products and computer software opened by consumers; Newspapers, periodicals, and other goods that are not suitable for return due to the nature of the goods and confirmed by the consumer at the time of purchase are not eligible for return without reason.
In addition to the listed goods, the "Consumer Rights Protection" does not clearly stipulate that ** this kind of intimate clothing is not applicable, but only stipulates that "other goods that are not suitable for return according to the nature of the goods and confirmed by the consumer at the time of purchase are not applicable to return without reason." Such a catch-all clause.
To understand this, we also have to combine Article 7 of the Interim Measures for the Seven-day No-reason Return of Goods Purchased Online by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, which stipulates that the seven-day no-reason return provisions may not apply to the following commodities confirmed by consumers at the time of purchase:
1) Commodities that are likely to affect personal safety or life and health after unpacking, or commodities that are likely to cause changes in the quality of the goods after unpacking;
2) Commodities whose value has been greatly depreciated once activated or tested;
3) Commodities that are close to their expiration date and defective goods that have been clearly indicated at the time of sale.
According to this provision, ** seems to meet the situation of "goods that are easy to affect personal safety or life and health after unpacking", and there may be bacteria and dirt after trying on, that is, it may affect life and health. At the same time, the product can be confirmed by the consumer at the time of purchase, and the seven-day no reason return rule can not be applied.
Despite this, it is still controversial whether ** is a product that is likely to affect personal safety or life and health after opening.
At this time, we still need to continue to combine Article 8 of the Measures, which stipulates that the goods returned by consumers should be in good condition. If the goods can maintain the original quality and function, and the goods themselves, accessories, and trademark logos are complete, the goods shall be deemed to be in good condition.
So can the ** that you tried to wear still be considered a good product? Is it still possible to maintain the original quality and functionality?
Some lawyers believe that the ** that has been tried to wear cannot be regarded as a good product, and it has not been able to maintain the original quality and function, and under normal circumstances, people cannot accept the ** that others have tried to wear. and**Fitting damages** for normal use. People buy ** to wear new, not second-hand.
Personally, I also think that the act of trying on has a significant impact on **, but I can't say what it affects. If you judge strictly from the quality and function of the product, then it seems that the quality and function of the try-on are not affected.
Article 9 of the Measures stipulates that the criteria for determining whether the goods are in good condition: 1The necessary disposable sealed packaging of food (including health food), cosmetics, medical devices, and family planning supplies is damaged; 2.Unauthorized repairs or alterations of electronic and electrical appliances, destruction or alteration of compulsory product certification marks, indication stickers, machine serial numbers, etc., and traces of appearance that are difficult to restore to their original state, or traces of data use such as activation, authorization information, and unreasonable retention of personal use data are generated; 3.Clothing, shoes, hats, bags, toys, home textiles, and household trademarks have been removed, the logos have been cut, or the goods have been soiled or damaged.
The test-worn ** affects the secondary sale of the product, so the seven-day no reason rule does not apply. I think that's a reasonable explanation.
The premise of the above questions is based on the online shopping scenario. If it is a purchase in a physical store, the seven-day no-reason return rule does not apply.
Is there any legal basis for a woman to be rejected for returning a product after buying a ** try-on?
According to Article 24 of the Consumer Rights and Interests Protection of the People's Republic of China, if the goods or services provided by the operator do not meet the quality requirements, the consumer may return the goods in accordance with the provisions of the state and the agreement of the parties, or require the operator to perform the obligations of replacement and repair. In the absence of national regulations and agreement between the parties, the consumer may return the goods within seven days from the date of receipt; If the statutory conditions for terminating the contract are met after seven days, the consumer may return the goods in a timely manner, and if the statutory conditions for terminating the contract are not met, the operator may be required to perform obligations such as replacement and repair.
That is to say, once the intimate clothing purchased by the consumer is unsealed or tried, due to the quality of the product itself, the special physical condition of the consumer and reasonable requirements, it is not allowed to be returned. So, despite the fact that the lady claimed to have only tried it on and not actually worn it, the special nature of the intimate clothing meant that the owner had the right to refuse the return.
Therefore, from a legal point of view, it is legal for the store owner to refuse to return the goods. Although the lady is not satisfied, she does not have the right to return or replace it under the legal framework.