At a time when internet purchases are weak, seven days of unjustified return adequately safeguard the rights and interests of consumers. But should the gift be returned together when the return is initiated? If the gift was already in use, how would it be offset
In recent days, the people's court of the east-west lake district of wuhan city has heard a dispute over the sale of goods. The defendant, li, returned the goods only to his clothes and did not return the gifts. As a result, he was brought before a court of law by a merchant。
In 2024, he purchased 5l sorghum at $560 in an internet shop run by a liquor company on the platform. In order to promote the sale, the merchant offered 500 ml of new slurry of 60 degrees of rice。
Shortly after the receipt of the goods, li returned the goods and then initiated a return request at the internet buying platform for the full refund. After receiving the goods, the merchant found that the returned goods were not originally packaged and recorded an open-box video of the returned goods, which opened and found that the gifts were not in the package。
As a result, the merchant contacted xiao li through the platform to request the return of the gifted wine, which, if not returned, would be deducted from the refund amount of $50. Xiao li did not agree to the deduction scheme and filed a complaint at the internet buying platform, after which the platform returned the order of $560 directly to xiao li. During this period, the liquor company contacted several times to request that the gift be returned, and li ignored it。
In september 2024, the liquor company brought xiao li before the east and west lake court, claiming that the defendant had returned the gifted wine or, failing that, had to pay $50 for the value of the gift, and also claiming that the defendant should bear the fee of $5,000 for counsel。
The presiding judge introduced zhang qingqing, and after the court took up the case, the liquor company presented to the court evidence of the delivery of the delivery mass, the return of the weight of the parcel, and the return of the box opening video. “it is generally possible to confirm that the package returned contained no gifts. The host judge said。
"i've also had a moment to drink the gin i gave." upon enquiry by the judge, li admitted that the gift had been consumed。
The court held that an information network contract relationship had been established between the defendants. The purchase of wine in the form of a gift by a liquor company is a typical promotion with gifts. Despite the branding of rice wine as a gift, the gift is part of the order。
In the event of a refund, li shall return all goods received. In the event that the gift is not returned, the value of the gift shall be credited to the total price and deducted from the refund。
In addition, in the present case, li violated the principle of good faith and failed to return the gifted wine, resulting in the company's repeated visits to the express delivery company for video surveillance and the commission of the case by a lawyer, which should bear the costs incurred by the company as a result。
In the end, the court of east and west lake found that the defendant, li, had returned the gift to a liquor company of the plaintiff, or had failed to do so, to pay the plaintiff a discount of $50 and to pay the lawyer a loss of $800。
In view of the fact that the gift had been finished, little lee was paid $850 in compensation to the liquor company, which indicated that it was subject to the court decision。
The judge advised that the gift was not a unilateral gift in a trading transaction, but an obligatory gift, and that the gift could be obtained only if the consumer had purchased a specified commodity or a specified quantity of goods in accordance with a pre-established promotion rule. In the case of gifts, although consumers do not pay their price separately in form, the value of the gift is actually included in the cost, and the price of the gift is actually included in the actual goods. Choi ming, chen bei
