When shopping, a number of traders limit the exchange of goods to consumers by posting them in the store or by indicating on the commodity details page that they “return only”. Many consumers encounter inappropriate sizes, misformations or quality defects. In the event of a defect, the hint would force the exchange of goods to be abandoned and only the option to return the goods. In fact, however, “return only” is a typical hegemony clause that does not deprive consumers of their legal right to exchange goods, and the unilateral label of the merchant is devoid of legal effect。
At the legal level, article 24 of the law of the people's republic of china on the protection of consumers ' rights and interests clearly states that, if the goods supplied by the operator do not meet the quality requirements, the consumer may return the goods in accordance with the regulations or require the operator to perform replacement or repair duties. This means that when there is a problem with the quality of the goods, the return, exchange or repair of the goods is the three legal rights of the consumer, and the merchant has no right to compel the consumer, through a unilateral declaration, only to return the goods and not to exchange them. Even if the merchant labels “release only”, the provision is void by excluding the legal rights of consumers and exempting themselves from liability, in violation of the principle of equity。
Consumers ' right to exchange goods is clearly guaranteed for different consumption scenarios. In the online purchase scenes, consumers have the right to return goods without cause for seven days, except for special goods such as custom-made, living and perishable, and when there are problems of quality in the goods, they have the right to choose either to return or to exchange goods of their own choice, and merchants may not refuse to exchange them “only”. In the case of sub-line physical stores, although the principle of voluntary commitments by the merchant is used as a reason for returning the goods, there are quality defects and serious inconsistencies in the description, and the consumer may still request a change of goods in accordance with the law, and the merchant's “no-go” notice cannot challenge the law。
In reality, some merchants confuse the term “negotiated sale” with the term “statutory liability”, arguing that a unilateral rule would prevail over the law, and that it was a disregard for consumer interests...
