Consumers who buy electronic products online and are dissatisfied with the product after unpacking and using it initiates a "seven-day no reason return", and the merchant refuses on the grounds that it has been opened. Can the "7-day no reason return" be applied to the unpacked electronic products? What should consumers do if they encounter "difficulty in returning" when shopping online?

Ms. Gu purchased a projector through an e-commerce platform, and after trying it, she found that the remote control of the projector was stuck and the playback screen was not smooth, so she initiated a return on the platform. However, the merchant refused to return the product on the grounds that the key jamming was not a quality problem. As a result, Ms. Gu initiated a "seven-day no reason to return" and sent the goods back to the merchant.

After receiving the projector, the merchant believes that the "page details" of the product indicate that the one-time packaging is damaged, and it does not support seven days of no reason to return or exchange; "Pre-purchase instructions" indicate that the value of this product has depreciated greatly after activation, and if the anti-counterfeiting signature or seal is damaged, it does not support "seven-day no reason to return". The plastic package of the product sent back by Ms. Gu has been opened, and the "seven-day no reason return" cannot be applied, so she refused to refund and sent the goods involved in the case back.

Ms. Gu said that when the merchant sent back the goods, she did not notify them in advance, and she did not receive the goods. When her rights were unsuccessful, Ms. Gu filed a lawsuit with the people's court, requesting a return for a refund.

"Shanghai High Court" WeChat public account map

After trial, the people's court held that the contents of the "page details" and "pre-purchase instructions" of the goods were not prompted and notified in a conspicuous position, and the applicable standards and circumstances for activation were not clearly indicated; After receiving the goods, Ms. Gu tested the playback performance of the projector such as the picture effect and system fluency, and returned the product on the grounds that the remote control and screen were stuck, which met the conventional operation and judgment standards of ordinary consumers, and the merchant had no direct evidence to prove that the product delivered to Ms. Gu for the second time was signed by herself.

In summary, the people's court found that there was no basis for the merchant's refusal to refund the money, and ruled that the merchant should refund Ms. Gu RMB 1648 in accordance with the seven-day no-reason return rule stipulated in the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests (hereinafter referred to as the "Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law"). The merchant appealed, and the original judgment was upheld in the second instance.

Shao Lixing, vice president of the Civil Trial Division of the Shanghai Putuo District People's Court, said that the "Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests" clearly stipulates the rule of "seven days for no reason to return". That is, if the operator sells the goods through the Internet, television, telephone, mail order, etc., the consumer has the right to return the goods within seven days from the date of receipt of the goods, and there is no need to explain the reasons, except for the "seven-day no reason return" that is not applicable based on the characteristics of the goods themselves or confirmed by both parties. The purpose of the rule:It is to allow online consumers to enjoy the same opportunities to inspect and try products as physical offline shoppingto fully protect consumers' right to fair trade.

According to Article 26 of the Law on the Protection of Rights and Interests of Consumers, if a business operator uses standard terms in its business activities, it shall draw the attention of consumers to the quantity and quality of goods or services, prices or fees, after-sales services and other contents that have a major interest in consumers, and explain them in accordance with consumers' requirements. For merchants, consumers should be reminded of the issues that need to be paid attention to in a prominent position on the sales page, so that consumers can fully understand the return rules applicable to the purchased goods.

In addition, the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests stipulates that although the goods that are confirmed by consumers to be unsuitable for return at the time of purchase according to the nature of the goods are not applicable to the return of goods without reason, the merchant should also reasonably judge whether the goods are indeed products that are not suitable for secondary sales as stipulated in this article based on good faith, so as to avoid abusing the system design, arbitrarily expanding the scope of goods, and harming the legitimate rights and interests of consumers.

He Ying, an associate professor at the School of Economic Law at East China University of Political Science and Law and director of the Huazheng Financial Law Research Center, said that the "seven-day no reason to return" mechanism, also known as the cooling-off period rule, aims to balance the information gap between the two parties to the transaction by giving consumers the "right to regret" and avoid impulsive consumption. According to Article 25 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests, consumers have the right to return goods without giving reasons within seven days from the date of receipt. The seven-day no-excuse return rule explicitly excludes four categories of special products: custom-made goods, perishables, digital products, and newspapers and periodicals. In this case, the projector, as an ordinary electronic product, obviously does not fall within the scope of statutory exceptions, and the merchant refuses to apply the cooling-off period rule on the grounds of "removal of the plastic packaging", which lacks basis. In addition, if the merchant marks on the product page that "the package is damaged and does not apply to return without reason", according to the provisions of Article 496 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, the exemption or limitation clause provided by the operator shall be fair and reasonable and prompted in a conspicuous manner, otherwise it will be deemed invalid. Finally, a reasonable inspection of the goods by the consumer shall not be used as a valid reason for refusing to return the goods. In this case, although the merchant provided the tracking number, it failed to prove that the returned goods were actually delivered to Ms. Gu, let alone fulfilled the obligation to send the return notice in advance, and should bear the consequences of adducing unfavorable evidence. The judgment in this case provides clear adjudication guidelines for similar disputes, reminding businesses to strictly abide by laws and regulations, operate in good faith, and earnestly fulfill the legal obligations of business operators.

Author: Surging News reporter Zheng Hao

Source: The Paper