Because of 10 catties of kelp silk, Ms. Wang, who runs an online store, sued a buyer who successfully applied to the platform for "refund only" and refused to return the goods on the grounds that "the size/size/weight, etc. do not match the description of the product". After suing, the buyer returned the goods. The court held that the buyer could return the goods for a refund if he was not satisfied with the goods, and that refusing to return the goods and only applying for a refund violated the principle of fairness in market transactions. However, the court rejected Ms. Wang's claim that the other party should bear the courier fee and attorney's fees.
This is a typical case involving "refund only" published by the China Judgments Network. In fact, a search for "refund-only" on the site will bring up quite a few similar contract disputes. Some merchants claimed in the lawsuit that "the defendants (buyers) are becoming more and more widely used to apply for refunds only, which has caused great distress to the majority of merchants and damaged the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiffs." In the judgment, some courts held that the buyer's behavior of "only refunding and not returning" violated the principle of honest and trustworthy transactions.
▲资料图片 图据IC photo
Recently, the "refund-only" mechanism of e-commerce platforms has attracted attention on the Internet on how to maintain fairness and reasonableness between protecting the rights and interests of consumers and merchants. The reporter interviewed and found that the "refund only" rule better protects the rights and interests of consumers, but at the same time, some people take advantage of the platform loopholes, violate the principle of honest and trustworthy transactions, and maliciously refuse to return the goods "refund only".
The store said:
Sue a malicious "refund-only" buyer
"For the export of gas"
Mr. Pan from Zhejiang runs an online store that sells paper towels. Last year, a buyer in Liaoning Province spent more than 30 yuan to buy 30 packs of paper towels in his store, and after receiving the goods, he applied for a "refund only" on the grounds of quality problems. The customer service of the platform intervened and applied for a refund of 7 yuan for the buyer, without returning.
After that, Mr. Pan arranged for the customer service of the online store to contact the other party to refund the return, or pay the 7 yuan refund through the platform. However, buyers have taken this opportunity to complain to the platform about the excessive interruption of the merchant. Subsequently, Mr. Pan sued the other party for a refund of 7 yuan, as well as payment of the lawyer's file adjustment fee, courier fee and related losses.
The court of first instance held that the e-commerce customer service platform, the main system of refunding 7 yuan to the buyer, and the merchant and the buyer conducted transactions on the platform, were deemed to have agreed to abide by the rules of the platform, the management method and the dispute resolution mode. Merchants shall perform relevant decisions made by the e-commerce customer service platform in accordance with its rules and procedures. The buyer operates according to the after-sales plan provided by the customer service platform, and the customer service platform allows the buyer to return the goods without returning, which is the direct reason why the buyer does not return the goods, and there is no malicious breach of contract. During the trial, the buyer expressed his willingness to refund the 7 yuan payment, and the court rejected Mr. Pan's other claims.
Mr. Pan said that at present, he has filed an appeal. Mr. Pan told reporters that the cost of suing a "refund-only" buyer is about five or six hundred yuan, but it is time-consuming and laborious, and he will not take this step unless he has to. He has sued more than 10 "refund-only" buyers, and there are two more cases to come, and while the results have not always been satisfactory, he is here to breathe.
Like Mr. Pan, Mr. Lian, a merchant in Yunnan, also chose to sue after encountering two "refund-only" cases from the same buyer. The buyer spent 75.81 yuan to place an order for two catties of stinky ginseng in his online store, and successfully applied for a "refund only" from the platform on the grounds that he had not received the goods. Later, after communication and confirmation, the buyer had received the goods, but neither paid for the goods nor returned the goods. A few months later, the buyer placed an order on Mr. Lian's online store again, and 13 days after receiving the goods, he successfully applied to the platform for a "refund only" of 42.8 yuan on the grounds of "corruption and deterioration of the goods".
Subsequently, Mr. Lian sued the buyer for payment of two orders totaling RMB 118.61 and a written apology. In the end, the court ordered the buyer to refund the two payments, but rejected Mr. Lian's request for a written apology. The court held that the buyer's behavior violated the principle of good faith in the transaction because the buyer did not return the goods after the first refund and refused to communicate, resulting in the merchant neither receiving payment nor recovering the goods; The second purchase of the same product, combined with the special nature of the commodity as a fresh commodity, reported that there was a problem with the quality of the product 13 days after signing for it, which exceeded the necessary and reasonable period, and no evidence was submitted to prove that the goods involved in the case had quality problems.
Of course, there are also merchants who lose the lawsuit. A consumer bought a set of sofas for 9,800 yuan, broke in half after two weeks of use, and after contacting the merchant to deal with it to no avail, he initiated a "refund only" application to the platform on the grounds of product quality problems. After 3 days, the platform system shows that "the merchant actively agrees to refund 9,800 yuan to the buyer".
Afterwards, the merchant sued the buyer, demanding compensation of 9,800 yuan and legal costs, but the court rejected it. The court held that after the buyer initiated the "refund only" application and the platform verified that the merchant's money was insufficient, the merchant voluntarily agreed to refund 9,800 yuan through the after-sales system, and it could be determined that the two parties had reached an agreement on the refund of the goods involved in the case only, so the merchant's lawsuit to demand compensation from the buyer lacked factual and legal basis.
Rules into loopholes?
The store proposed to adjust the monitoring and verification
Some buyers said it was "just a joke"
In fact, the "refund only" of the e-commerce platform means that after consumers purchase a certain product, due to certain problems with the product, the consumer can apply for a full refund without returning the goods, which will also urge merchants to pay attention to the quality of the goods. However, in the eyes of some merchants, this rule, which aims to improve user experience and protect consumer rights and interests, has been maliciously applied for "refund only" by some consumers taking advantage of the platform's review loopholes.
The reporter found that there are even online posts on the Internet that teach people how to successfully apply for a "refund only" from the platform. A netizen was puzzled: "I don't understand why so many people take only refunds for granted, only refunds, isn't that for nothing?" ”
A merchant said that although the platform has a relevant appeal channel, when the buyer and seller insist on their own words, the platform will often tilt towards the buyer, and some buyers can successfully "refund only" without sufficient evidence, which is unfair to the merchant.
Mr. Wu runs a cultural and creative products store. He said that some buyers did not hesitate to lie in order to succeed in "refund-only". He provided the reporter with screenshots of the communication between two buyers who applied for "refund only" on the grounds of "something is missing", and when he asked the courier to help access the monitoring and verification, the other party immediately coaxed, one said "just a joke for you", and the other replied "no need".
▲Screenshot of the chat between the merchant and the "return-only" buyer
Mr. Wu said that if the product is indeed defective, it is understandable to apply for a "refund only", but the purely malicious "refund only" buyer is very angry, he has sued three or four times, but it is troublesome to think that it is troublesome to sue for an order of a few dollars, and more often he can only admit that he is unlucky.
A business that operates the customization of water supply and drainage distribution boxes also told reporters that a buyer continues to find fault after receiving the goods to trigger the platform's "refund only" mechanism, but the other party is unwilling to "return the refund", and still applies for "refund only" continuously, and the platform monitors that one-third of the payment has been refunded, and the other party is not satisfied, and the store takes the initiative to compensate 30 yuan. A month later, the other party complained to the platform that his bad attitude led to the store being punished. The merchant reluctantly said that he had not thought of suing the other party, after all, the store still needs to maintain its business.
Lawyer's Statement:
The platform should refine the "refund only" condition
Formulate reasonable evaluation standards
Lin Xiaoming, a partner at Sichuan Yishang Law Firm, said that the regulations for the implementation of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, which came into effect on July 1 this year, clearly stipulate: "The goods returned by consumers should be in good condition." If the consumer needs to open the packaging of the goods based on inspection, or make reasonable adjustments to confirm the quality and function of the goods without affecting the original quality, function and appearance of the goods, the business operator shall return the goods", "Consumers shall follow the principle of good faith when returning goods without reason, and shall not use the no-reason return rule to harm the legitimate rights and interests of business operators and other consumers", so consumers should return goods without reason should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, and if there are indeed reasons for return, they should return the goods in accordance with the law.
He said that in order to avoid some consumers from taking advantage of loopholes, the platform should also formulate reasonable and fair rules and dispose of them according to the reason for the return: the legitimate behavior will be refunded after the return arrives, and the merchant can also claim the return of unjust enrichment from the consumer through legal channels, and can also claim the liability for breach of contract from the platform.
Zeng Yu, a lawyer at Sichuan Zongmu Law Firm, said that consumers need to sign a user registration agreement with the platform before using the e-commerce platform to make purchases. Before using the e-commerce platform to sell goods or services, merchants need to sign a user registration agreement and a merchant entry agreement with the platform. Subsequently, the e-commerce platform will include a third party other than the counterparty to the contract into the existing contractual relationship based on itself, so that it will be bound by common rights and obligations. Since the merchant has signed and agreed to implement the "refund only" rule when entering the platform, the e-commerce platform may make relevant decisions in accordance with the rules and procedures for consumers' requests for refund-only, and the merchant shall perform them.
Zeng Yu said that in current practice, those who meet the conditions of "refund only" must meet the requirements of buying "seriously inferior and incorrect goods", or encounter the seller's delay in delivery or forced delivery without the buyer's permission. When dealing with the buyer's request for "refund only", some e-commerce platforms use their own big data capabilities to record transactions and communications between buyers and sellers. some are bounded by product satisfaction; Some determine that the boundaries are blurred, and decide whether to support refund-only according to transaction habits.
Zeng Yu believes that e-commerce platforms do not actually have a relatively reasonable evaluation standard when dealing with such situations. If there is no defect in the goods, the consumer's forced refund is obviously contrary to the principle of good faith, and the consumer has constituted a breach of contract. As an intermediary, the platform may also breach the contract because it fails to fulfill its obligation to prompt and explain or review. At present, the most effective solution is to confirm the breach of contract between the consumer and the platform through litigation, and require both parties to compensate for the losses caused by the breach. At the same time, as an intermediary, the platform has the leading power in formulating rules and reviewing relevant requests, and should refine the application of the "refund only" condition, and for the review of consumers' application for refund, the platform should formulate more reasonable assessment standards, improve the review procedures, and strengthen the review.
Source: Chengdu Business Daily