In jiangsu nanking, a woman placed a sofa on a shopping platform, paid $1012. 83 and the seller promised to deliver the goods seven days later. In the meantime, the woman was anxious to buy a couch at the real store and then applied to the seller for a refund, which appeared on the page. As expected, only $599. 9 was returned and the remaining $412 was withheld. The woman was in a loop and asked about the seller, who claimed that the goods had been returned in transit and that the freight should be borne by the woman. Woman quit, angry: 7 days without reason, why would i pay for the freight? And i spent $21 on freight insurance! How come it didn't work
According to windstorm news, on 14 june, ms. Li of jiang sunanking was in a bad mood, and the net purchase refund was deducted from a high freight charge, while she was repeatedly defending her rights。
From 7 may onwards, ms. Lee tried to renovate the house and, for convenience, purchased a couch at a furniture store on a shopping platform, paying $1012. 83。
The seller had informed her that the delivery had been made on 14 may and that ms. Cory was in a hurry to set up, so she went to the real store and happened to be on a sofa and bought it。
She thought it would be better if the couch she bought on the internet had seven days to serve without reason。
On 12 may, she applied for a refund from the seller, which was shown on the order page。
She's relieved and thinks it's over until she gets a $599. 9 bill for the payment, and she's a mess and buys her own couch for over a thousand
He then looked closely at the details of the refund, and it became clear that the freight charges had been withheld for $412 and that ms. Lee had almost failed to shock her chin and found it unreasonable。
Call the furniture store's customer service and reply, since ms. Lee had requested a refund herself, so she had to bear the cost of shipping。
Ms. Lee did not accept the statement that she was in the range of seven days without a reason for a normal refund and had purchased a large freight risk at a special cost of $21
This was explained by the passenger service, which, after shipment, applied for a refund for the purchase of the goods at home and stated that there was no freight insurance for large pieces of furniture。
But ms. Lee quit, and when she bought her own freight insurance, the seller did not inform her that she could buy it。
Lee quea had a nose in the passenger service and complained to the platform, and it was unexpected that the platform was identical with the seller and why could it not be used for freight insurance? This is explained by the fact that freight costs cannot be used because of the seizure。
In any event, ms. Lee had returned the goods in transit, although the seller had succeeded in intercepting them, but it was not a matter of quality, and it was her responsibility to bear the cost of transportation。
The more she tried to swallow the couch, the more she had to withhold $412。
As a result, complaints were lodged with the relevant market regulators, who responded that the matter was not within their purview and that ms. Lee would continue to look for a platform。
Ms. Lee found the platform, which, in order to appease ms. Lee, offered to compensate her by issuing a consumption voucher, which, in ms. Lee's opinion, was a zero-sum rejection compared to her loss of $412。
Ms. Lee cannot stop and insist on defending her rights. In her view, when the next order is filed, neither the platform nor the merchant warns that refunds will give rise to freight charges, nor will freight prices be transparent. And it's too much to take half of the money without receiving anything。
As a result, media interventions were contacted and journalists contacted vendors and platforms to clarify the situation。
The attitude of the client was very strong, insisting that there was no reason to support a seven-day change, but that the personal reasons for the change were to bear the cost of the return shipment, which was the issue of quality for the seller。
When the journalist asked whether ms. Lee had been informed in advance of the freight charges and the large freight charges, the client's service had to check the chat records using the original account number and was angry: instead of talking about it here, the refusal was still justified. Then we just hacked the reporter
The platform's staff explained that they were determining who bore the freight on the basis of the refunds chosen by the buyer。
It was also stated that the freight was withheld by the seller, that it was the costs incurred by the courier company in intercepting the shipment, and that the freight insurance paid by ms. Lee was not needed because it was stopped and not returned。
In the past month, by 14 june, the platform had contacted ms. Lee, who had been reluctant to accept the offer of $300 for her account without a threshold red envelope。
Article 24 of the consumer protection act provides that the operator shall bear the necessary costs such as transportation。
In other words, the cost of returning goods due to the quality of the goods should be borne by the operator。
In this case, ms. Lee's request for a refund was not a fault of the seller for personal reasons, such as the quality of the goods, and the return of the goods by the consumer for personal reasons, the cost of which was usually borne by the consumer。
Businesses and platforms should, however, clearly inform consumers in advance of the possible freight costs and related rules for returning goods, otherwise the right to know may be violated。
Often, freight insurance is used on return, while ms. Lee's case is that goods are stopped while in transit and not strictly “repatriated”, so there is some justification for the platform and seller not to use freight risk on the ground that “the interception is not a return”。
However, ms. Lee's restrictions on the use of freight insurance were not clearly communicated to the seller during the sale, which also undermined the right of consumers to know。
If ms. Lee is not satisfied with the outcome of the platform's treatment, she can take a legal course to defend her rights。
In response, a different view was expressed by netizens, who said that as long as the goods were shipped, non-quality issues should be returned at the expense of the buyer. I'm just a buyer, so do i. Net purchases are just for your convenience, not for evading responsibility。
And it was said, “everyone is grown up, and do what he will.” if you buy anything, you'll be in trouble
What do you think of that
