Case review
Company A opened a "mobile phone digital *** on the "Duoduo" platform, hereinafter referred to as the "store involved in the case"). Mr. Niu purchased a mobile phone (hereinafter referred to as the "mobile phone") at the store involved in the case, and Mr. Niu paid the full price and signed for receipt on October 27, 2020. Company A issued an invoice.
In the screenshot of the "Transaction Successful" page of Mr. Niu's order, the "Instructions for Use" contains "If the activated digital product has no quality problems, it does not support seven days of no reason to return or exchange, please confirm the demand before activating it." ”
On October 27, 2020, Mr. Niu communicated with the customer service of the store involved in the case and asked for a return on the grounds that there was a problem with the screen, and the customer service replied "Dear, unopened, not activated, and returned to the warehouse for verification (that is, the machine does not affect the secondary sales) The product supports seven days of no reason to return Oh, after unpacking, it does not support seven days of no reason to return the goods, and I know it", Mr. Niu replied "Opened, activated, how do you know if there is a problem with the screen if it is not activated?".”。
Mr. Niu submitted a screenshot of the "Negotiation Record", showing that from October 27, 2020 to November 17, 2020, Mr. Niu submitted an application for return and refund on the grounds of "defects with accessories, parts, and screens".There is a serious problem with the quality!The phone has been unpacked and activated!It also requires the platform to provide the merchant's industrial and commercial registration information for litigation and rights protection. The store in question rejected the application on the grounds that "there is no problem with the product and the consumer has not provided evidence". The platform also replied, "Dear, I'm sorry, about the after-sales problem of your order, after review, the platform cannot support your after-sales application." If you have any other questions, you are welcome to contact the official customer service and wish you a happy shopping."
Mr. Niu communicated with the store involved in the case and a certain Duoduo platform to no avail, and sued the court.
Court decision
Company A refunded the price of the plaintiff Mr. Niu's mobile phone within seven days from the effective date of this judgment, and the plaintiff Mr. Niu also returned the mobile phone involved in the case to the defendant Company A.
Legal analysis
The focus of the dispute in this case is whether Company A can refuse to return the mobile phone for seven days without reason on the grounds that the mobile phone in question has been activated.
Article 7 of the Interim Measures for the Seven-day No-Reason Return of Goods Purchased Online stipulates that the seven-day no-reason return provisions may not apply to the following types of goods confirmed by consumers at the time of purchase: (2) Commodities whose value has depreciated greatly once activated or tested. Article 20 stipulates that for goods that meet the requirements of Article 7 of these Measures, online sellers of goods shall set up conspicuous confirmation procedures in the process necessary for the sale of goods for consumers to confirm the single purchase. If there is no confirmation, the online seller shall not refuse to return the goods without reason within seven days.
Once the mobile phone product is activated, it will have a greater impact on its value, so the seven-day no-reason return rule can not be applied. However, the premise of exempting the seven-day no-reason return should also be set up in the process of selling the goods.
In this case, Company A made a conspicuous notice in the instructions on the transaction success page, but did not set up a significant single confirmation procedure in the process necessary for the sale of goods. Therefore, Company A's argument that the mobile phone involved in the case had been activated and was exempted from the seven-day trial without reason to return the goods was not supported by the court. The plaintiff, Mr. Niu, requested Company A to refund and return the goods, which was upheld by the court.
Author's message
The state has set up corresponding rights and interests protection mechanisms for both parties to online transactions and trading platform providers, and formulated trading rules, which can better balance the interests of all parties. However, in online shopping transactions, it is common for the understanding and practices of the parties to be inconsistent, so disputes often occur. Resolving legal disputes is a professional matter. Professional matters are handed over to professional people, and Zeda Law Firm will help you solve your problems.
The author of this article is Peng Xuejun of Beijing Zeda Law Firm.