news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

recently, the guangzhou internet court announced a case in which an operator sued a consumer for "refund only".

tang purchased a women's bag from a store operated by a certain company on platform a and paid a price of 56.72 yuan. after tang received the goods, he applied for "refund only" on platform a on the grounds that "the goods were not received". a company disagreed with the application and suggested that tang return the product for a refund. during the negotiation process, platform a proactively intervened and approved tang’s “refund only” application. after the refund, a company repeatedly asked tang to return the goods or pay for the goods, but tang ignored them. a certain company then filed a lawsuit in court, requiring tang to return the payment of 56.72 yuan and bear the company's rights protection expenses of 900 yuan. after receiving the litigation materials electronically served by the court, tang left a message on platform a saying that he had no dispute with a certain company and still refused to return or refund.

tang mou replied: he confirmed that he had received the women's bag and agreed to refund, but he did not agree to bear the rights protection losses of a certain company. the reason for refusing the return at that time was poor customer service attitude and poor product quality.

tang did not provide evidence to platform a that the product had quality problems, and did not submit evidence to the court during the lawsuit.

the effective judgment of the guangzhou internet court is: 1. tang mou returned the payment of 56.72 yuan to a certain company; 2. tang mou paid 400 yuan to a certain company for rights protection losses. the above judgment has come into effect.

feng qinjuan, a lawyer at tahota law firm, introduced that the principle of good faith stipulated in the civil code is a basic principle of law and a legal principle that every citizen and every organization should abide by. the most basic requirement of the principle of good faith is to seek truth from facts and not commit false acts. make no false representations. according to article 24 of the consumer rights protection law, consumers must abide by the principle of good faith whether they claim to terminate the contract on the grounds that the goods do not meet quality requirements or exercise their seven-day no-reason right to return goods.

in this case, tang had already received the goods and used them, but the reason for applying for "refund only" on the grounds of "not receiving the goods" was not true. tang also did not provide evidence to the court that the product had unfavorable circumstances that met the "refund only" conditions. therefore, his behavior of using the platform’s “refund only” rule to apply for a refund based on false reasons violates the principle of good faith. therefore, the people's court ruled that tang mou should pay 56.72 yuan to the merchant in accordance with the provisions of the consumer rights protection law. tang violated the principle of good faith first, but still ignored the merchant's repeated reminders for payment or returns. he was obviously at fault for the occurrence of disputes and the expansion of losses. therefore, the court made a negative evaluation of his dishonest behavior and imposed appropriate punishments. the merchant will inevitably incur money and time costs when safeguarding rights, which are actual losses that will inevitably occur during the litigation process. therefore, tang needs to compensate the merchant for the economic losses suffered.

feng qinjuan reminded that e-commerce platforms advocate the "refund only" rule, which involves the balance of interests between consumers, operators within the platform and the e-commerce platform. its operation is mainly based on the relationship between consumers and platforms, operators and platforms. an agreement signed between parties is an agreement that all parties can freely agree on and reach voluntarily. abusing the "refund only" rule will encourage dishonest behavior on the part of some consumers and damage the legitimate rights and interests of platform merchants. over time, the reduction of successful transactions will also harm the interests of e-commerce platforms. therefore, in order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of merchants on the platform, promote merchants to better serve consumers, and improve the transaction activity of the e-commerce platform, the boundaries of the "refund only" rule can be clarified and the use of the "refund only" rule can be restricted. for example, if the product is not a fake and shoddy product and conforms to the merchant's promotion, the consumer should not "just refund".

xiaoxiang morning news reporter zhang qin and intern zhu tianxiang