in reality, a lot of people online shopping receipt, without unpacking, not knowing that there is a great risk. The judge suggested that, even with respect to online merchants, consumers may be in a relatively weak position, but in the process of online shopping, consumers should timely perform inspection obligations, otherwise should also bear the resulting loss.
text / Guangzhou Daily reporter Intern Li Lin
in April 3rd last year, Mr. Liao submitted orders to buy ASUS laptop computers, computer bags, mouse pads, protective film, wireless mouse a total of five goods, the total payment of $5599. The same day, the delivery of the above goods will be sent to the designated recipient address. Mr. Liao entrusted his aunt receipt of payment, but because the deliveryman urged, aunt to face inspection.
the next day, Mr. Liao home open the packaging of goods, not the normal use of the notebook computer found damaged. At 23:58, he applied to return to the Jingdong mall. But Jingdong refused to return the application of mr..
in April 6th last year, Mr. Liu will be sent to the laptop ASUS product service center detection. The investigation, failure to screen broken, keyboard module rear sag, but non normal damage.
Liao repeatedly applied to the Jingdong to refund the purchase of all goods, Jingdong company to compromise, in May 30th last year promised to return, and in June 15th last year, the full refund of the purchase of mr..
but Mr. Liu is still unhappy. He believes that Jingdong’s behavior has violated the consumer protection law, the provisions of article fifty-fifth, constitutes a fraud. Therefore, Mr. Liao will Jingdong sued the court, asking for compensation three times the loss of money, that is, $16797.
Court: buyers not timely inspection Jingdong does not constitute fraud
reasons for the prosecution of Liao, after the court hearing that Jingdong does not constitute fraud.
court that, in conjunction with a series of evidence provided in the case of Mr. Liu, the court believes that Mr. Liao is a good buyer, but Mr. Liao’s goodwill is not necessarily derived from the malicious and dishonest aspects of Jingdong. When the courier’s urging, resulting in the collection of goods for families to spot inspection, Mr. Liao also by telephone and other means in the receipt of the goods after the goods unpacking inspection of family instructions. However, Mr. Liu did not check the goods until 30 hours after receipt. Thus, in the course of the transaction, Mr. Liao is not to do the duty of care.
contrast Jingdong company, the court held that it is for the collection and inspection process described by mr.. Jingdong that such obvious appearance defects, but Mr Liu to confirm receipt after 30 hours, apparently counterintuitive, and infer that the product damage caused by the user’s personal system is reasonable, there is no fraud or intentional prevarication. Moreover, after repeated requests for the return of Mr. Liao, Jingdong also agreed to apply for returns for Mr.