When they were shopping online, they heard from the salesman that they had freight insurance, and they found themselves paying for the goods only when they were returned; they ordered the goods and refused to accept them because of their default, but the seller did not return the money when it was submitted. Precious return disputes of this kind have recently occurred between arjun and ammi, and journalists have been told about their experiences and their rights, hoping that more consumers will be careful when buying online and avoid entering the pit。
When the air was broadcast, it was not clear that the freight insurance only had the top priority, and that the freight price was offset by a quality refund
Jean saw on the shivering a cleanup from a well-known official store. The local robots said that they had freight insurance to cover the bill, and they found that there was a problem with the quality of the goods to be returned。
After the purchase of the ground sweeper robot in january this year, jean made several debuggings and contacted after the sale of the customer service was not properly used under his guidance. It was then that she learned that the $9 freight risk was only the first to be paid, and that “when the direct purchase is sold live, it is not clear that the freight risk is the first, and why should the user bear the freight, given the quality of the goods themselves?”
According to video evidence provided by jan, when she purchased the next purchase, she sent an explicit message asking whether the freight risk was fully insured, but the lead purchase was only a vague answer, which was based on platform standards; and saying that, if it was due to quality problems, it could be repaired or replaced free of charge, and that they would bear the cost of the transportation back and forth。
As a result, jane responded to the 12315 complaint on several occasions, and later contacted the client service to indicate that she was willing to come to the door to pick up the items and pay the full cost of the refund. “because i had been asked to pay the freight charges before the shipment could be delivered from the other side, i refused to do so and now the goods are returned. Although now they are willing to bear the freight, i think they are deceiving consumers, and i ask for a refund to be paid.” on march 22nd, jane said。
There is no reason to return the goods within seven days of receiving them. Why should they not be returned
At the beginning of february, after learning about one of the plant's hydrooxygen machines on the online platform that opened the farm, the company added the company's company's microclinic, and after negotiating the price, it ordered five in advance of $15,000. The other party promised to deliver within one to two days, but two days later, the américa logistics survey found that the company had not notified the courier of the receipt and that the spare parts of the product were missing and required her to purchase from a third party. Amé did not trust the other party and cancelled the order via a twitter phone. It was not expected that an hour later the other party had delivered another shipment. When the goods arrived, the company refused to receive them and requested a refund, but the company stated that it did not support the return of the goods for no reason。
Subsequently, the united states responded to the market supervisory authority and the committee, but they indicated that they could only mediate. After numerous consultations, the company indicated that it would have to deduct a loss of $5,000, but the united states disagreed. “i have asked many times what the loss is. They said they couldn't come out and then asked again and again to say that there were logistics, labour and packing costs.” ame stated that she was willing to bear the logistics costs, but that she should not bear the labour and packaging costs, as she had confiscated the goods。
Despite the fact that the united arab emirates, which felt unfair, had filed its suit online, it had consulted repeatedly with the other party to reach a settlement by refunding the sum of $11,000。
When a consumer encounters unfairness in the return of goods, the seller may be required by law to recover compensation
The law on the protection of consumers ' rights and interests is explicit in the case of the return dispute between arjun and ammi. Article 24 of the act provides that, if the goods or services provided by the operator do not meet the quality requirements, the consumer may, in accordance with state regulations, agree to return the goods, or require the operator to perform obligations such as replacement, repair, etc. And the operator should bear the necessary costs such as transportation. Article 25 provides that the operator sells goods on the internet, television, telephone, mail, etc., and that the consumer has the right to return the goods within seven days of the receipt of the goods without having to give reasons. The operator shall return the price paid by the consumer within seven days from the date of receipt of the returned commodity. The cost of returning the goods is borne by the consumer; the operator and the consumer agree otherwise, as agreed。
In response to a dispute over the return of goods by amey, the lawyer li yuxiang, a law firm in guangdong, stated that she could buy the goods on the internet for seven days without justification for refunding them, in addition to the fact that she had confiscated the goods。
In this regard, counsel reminds that when online purchases are made, care must be taken to obtain detailed information on the shipping risk standards of the vendor or platform, to receive the goods and find quality problems, to obtain a timely certificate and contact the vendor to return the goods, or, if the vendor refuses to do so, to file a complaint with the relevant authorities or to bring the matter to court。
(previously entitled “citizens buy and return goods in trouble and can legally defend them in the face of unfair business practices)
Editor, zhong shao ting, read, liu chunsheng, second instance, li jia tin, third instance, liu yiping
