#文章首发挑战赛#
Jack Ma once said when he was proud: "If the bank doesn't change, then we will change the bank." This sentence was loud, he did it, and today the same sentence was sent to Taobao: "If Taobao does not change, then Pinduoduo will change Taobao." "Pinduoduo has done the same.
Pinduoduo ushered in a refund-only era
With the advent of the era of "refund-only", Taobao and JD.com have also followed the trend! However, this rule has caused a big conflict between merchants and consumers. Consumers buy things on the platform, find that there is a problem with the quality, go to the platform to ask for after-sales, the platform also accepts, gives a penalty of only refund, the merchant does not do it, to sue the consumer, but also the summons to sue the consumer is exposed, this is good, who is the law in the end? In this contradiction, who is right and who is wrong? Who has to bear legal responsibility?
Online information, it is said that a merchant sued the buyer
How much does "refund-only" affect merchants?
"Refund only" does have a certain impact on merchants, because the implementation of this rule may mean that if the problem cannot be solved, they will have to accept a refund only and bear the loss of the goods. In particular, in the case of some malicious chargebacks, false complaints, or the actual condition of the goods does not match what the consumer says, the merchant may be at risk of being forced to bear unfair losses. In addition, if the merchant fails to provide valid evidence to appeal within the specified time, it may be difficult to protect its rights and interests. But if they sell counterfeit and shoddy, low-quality goods, then such merchants simply deserve it.
Taobao only refunds the new rules
Only refunds who broke the law
Although the "refund only" penalty does not necessarily mean who broke the law, in this case, the merchant sued, and the court accepted it, in fact, we consumers don't have to worry too much. The court's acceptance does not mean that the merchant has won. If there is indeed a problem with the quality of the goods, then the merchant will lose the lawsuit and will have to bear the corresponding legal responsibility. According to Article 55 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests, the merchant may, at the request of the consumer, increase the compensation to the consumer's loss by three times the price of the goods purchased by the consumer or the cost of the service received, and if the amount of the additional compensation is less than 500 yuan, then the compensation must be 500 yuan.
The lawyer replied that he was not afraid of the other party suing to protect his legitimate rights and interests
However, if the platform does not follow the prescribed processes and standards when handling after-sales, or there is partiality, then the platform needs to bear the corresponding legal responsibility, and we have nothing to do with it.
Of course, it is not excluded that some people will maliciously do things and want to pick wool, so this pot will have to be borne by themselves, and all legal responsibilities will have to be borne by themselves.
Write at the end
Overall, the implementation of the "refund-only" rule has indeed sparked tensions between merchants and consumers. It is undeniable that "refund-only" provides consumers with a more convenient after-sales experience, but if this rule is used, malicious "refund-only" is also subject to legal liability.