Yangcheng Evening News reporter Ma Can
Nowadays, online shopping has become an important part of people's daily life.
Recently, a citizen in Guangzhou needed a refund after online shopping, but was asked by the merchant to provide an "unboxing video", which caused heated discussions.
Some neighbors questioned whether the business's practices were reasonable.
In this regard, the reporter invited lawyers to answer.
Merchants ask consumers to provide unboxing videos
Recently, a batch of industrial spare parts purchased by Mr. Zheng from Taobao in Guangzhou was seriously rusted and suspected to be refurbished products, but the merchant refused to refund.
During the negotiation between the two parties, the merchant asked Mr. Zheng to provide a video of the unboxing, which aroused heated discussions among netizens, and once rushed to the hot search.
Coincidentally.
Last year, Ms. Zhang from Changsha, Hunan bought a set of books on Dangdang App, and the customer service commitment was genuine.
Ms. Zhang opened the courier and found that "there are obvious problems with the printing quality of the book".
Subsequently, Ms. Zhang reported the situation to the customer service of Dangdang App, who asked her to show evidence.
After Ms. Zhang contacted the book publisher, she identified these books as pirated.
Ms. Zhang sent the appraisal report to the customer service, "the customer service also asked me to provide a proof of opening the box before legal compensation can be made."
Ms. Zhang is very embarrassed. Who would take a video when unpacking the courier?
In this regard, lawyer Weng Chunhui of Beijing Yingke (Guangzhou) Law Firm said that from the above situation, it is unreasonable to ask consumers to provide unboxing videos.
"It's a question of the burden of proof." He explained that as a consumer, the burden of proof is to prove that the products they receive have quality problems, or whether they are genuine or false.
If a merchant suspects that a consumer has behaviors such as changing packages, they need to provide evidence, rather than requiring consumers to record unboxing videos to prove it.
Shopping in the live broadcast room should pay attention to the applicable scope of returns
Nowadays, there are various forms of online shopping, and live streaming is also the most popular form of online consumption.
What should consumers do when the goods they receive are different from what they saw in the webcast room?
Recently, Ms. Liu, a consumer, bought a jade bracelet at a price of 8,800 yuan in the live broadcast room of an online shopping platform.
After getting the goods, she found that not only the color of the bracelet was very different from that displayed in the live broadcast room, but also the surface of the jade bracelet had visible stone patterns, and there were problems such as rough polishing.
She immediately took a photo and contacted the platform's customer service to request a return for a refund, but was rejected by the other party.
Because the merchant refused to return the refund, Ms. Liu filed a lawsuit with the local court.
In the court, the merchant said that the goods involved were selected and ordered by Ms. Liu in the live broadcast room. He also sent pictures of the goods to Ms. Liu, and he processed them after confirming that they were correct.
At the same time, the processed jade bracelet was also shown to Ms. Liu in the live broadcast room, and Ms. Liu did not raise any doubts.
The court held that since the merchant has fulfilled its obligation to remind, Ms. Liu's order does not apply to the 7-day no-reason return standard.
However, for jade commodities, the texture, fineness and style of jade have an important impact on the realization of the purpose of the contract.
"The live broadcast platform shows that this bracelet is yellow jadeite, which is very different from the bracelet she got. The color is similar to a little olive green." After the trial, it was found that the color difference between the bracelet Ms. Liu received and the one displayed in the live broadcast room was no longer reasonable. In the range.
Therefore, the court supported Ms. Liu's claim for return and refund.
When the reporter sorted out relevant cases, it was found that when consumers shop in the live broadcast room, there are often situations in which they do not support 7-day unreasonable returns, special products are not returned or exchanged, etc., resulting in the dilemma of consumers' rights protection.
In this regard, relevant experts from the Consumer Council of Guangdong Province said that when consumers shop in the live broadcast room, they must be clear about the scope of the 7-day no-reason return.
my country's "Consumer Rights Protection Law" clearly stipulates that 7-day unreasonable return of goods is not applicable, such as consumer-made, fresh and perishable, online download or consumer unpacked audio and video products, computer software and other digital goods, Delivered newspapers and periodicals, etc. For such products, consumers must keep abreast of the detailed information of the products, and rationally purchase products based on their own needs to avoid "stepping on the pit".
At the same time, regarding the overlord clauses such as "non-refundable and non-exchangeable specials" appearing in the live broadcast room, consumers must have a sense of evidence and keep relevant evidence in a timely and fixed manner.
Special offer products usually have quality defects such as lack of hang tags and lack of inspection certificates. "Special offer products are non-refundable and non-exchangeable", which do not meet the provisions of the "Product Quality Law". Terms".
Weng Chunhui said that such clauses are generally regarded as invalid clauses in judicial practice.
Therefore, when consumers encounter similar problems, they can retain evidence by taking pictures, videos, etc., and claim their legal rights in a timely manner.