Is "Items sold without return" legal? Ask for answers

After adding it to her home, Lu’s daughter started to use the repeater according to the instructions in the manual. However, during use, she found that the product lacked the two functions of automatic time reporting and voice error correction mentioned in the manual, and its appearance It is quite different from the product picture shown in the poster. When Lu went to the mall and asked for a return or exchange, the person in charge of the mall pointed to a line of "store rules" on the home appliance counter and said, "Isn't it clearly written on it? 'Items sold will not be returned.' The final right of interpretation belongs to the manufacturer, so we have no choice." In desperation, Lu had no choice but to complain to the Municipal Consumer Committee and ask the mall to return the product. After the Municipal Consumer Committee received Lu’s complaint, after investigation, it was found that there were indeed notices in the mall saying “Items sold are non-returnable” and “The manufacturer has the final right to interpret the products sold.” Moreover, in the face of the Consumer Committee The staff and the person in charge of the shopping mall still believe that buying and selling goods is a voluntary act by both parties. Once consumers decide to buy, they should not regret it; and there is nothing wrong with the shopping mall making such a provision. Finally, after the staff of the Consumer Council publicized the relevant legal provisions of the country, they pointed out that the store notices in shopping malls are contrary to the law and are invalid civil legal acts and have no binding force on consumers. In the end, the mall agreed to Lu’s return request. Legal analysis:

This is a case of return dispute caused by the inconsistency between the advertisement and the real product. In recent years, when people go shopping in shopping malls, they often see store notices such as "Penalty 10 for stealing" and "No return of goods sold" at the business premises. Once consumers have different opinions on a certain product or service, operators will use various predetermined store notices as a "shield" to shirk responsibility. So can store notices such as "Items sold without return" be legally binding on consumers?

The common store notices in our daily life refer to matters such as warning slogans and signboards hung and posted by operators in their business premises for consumers to know. The content of store notices can generally be divided into two categories: the first is a general announcement related to business conditions, such as "This store is taking stock and is temporarily closed"; the second is related to transaction content, that is, contract terms, such as "Goods are sold and will not be returned." . The first type of notice generally does not involve the rights and interests of consumers; the second type of notice is set as a contract clause, which involves the rights and obligations of consumers and operators.

For the second category of store notices, the content itself must not violate legal provisions, must not limit the rights enjoyed by consumers in accordance with the law, and must not legitimately exempt business responsibilities, otherwise the provisions will be invalid. For example, the common "Customers respect themselves, you will be fined ten for stealing" or even some operators posted "Our company reserves the right to check the bags brought into our store at the cashier". These are obviously illegal notices and violate the "Constitution" and " "General Principles of Civil Law", "Criminal Law" and other laws and regulations on the protection of citizens' personality rights. "The goods are sold and will not be returned" is an improper exemption statement because it completely shirks the operator's responsibility. The contents of the above notices are invalid and consumers may not comply with them.

Specifically in this case, resident Lu decided to purchase the repeater based on the poster's introduction. However, the actual functions of the repeater were inconsistent with the poster. The person in charge of the shopping mall refused to return the product because there was a notice in the mall. The content of the store notice is unfair in that it reduces or exempts the operators from their own responsibilities and obligations and harms the legitimate rights and interests of consumers. According to Article 24 of my country’s Consumer Rights Protection Law: “Operators shall not make unfair or unreasonable provisions for consumers through standard contracts, notices, statements, store notices, etc., or reduce or exempt consumers from such provisions. Civil liability for harming the legitimate rights and interests of consumers. If the format contracts, notices, statements, store notices, etc. contain the contents listed in the preceding paragraph, their contents are invalid.”

It can be seen from this provision that consumption. When purchasing goods or receiving services, a contractual relationship has been formed between the operator and the operator. After Lu purchased the repeater and paid according to the price, the mall did not deliver the goods in compliance with the contract.

In the case of a breach of contract in a shopping mall, Lu has the right to request a return of the goods and the payment for the goods, but the person in charge of the shopping mall refuses to return the goods on the grounds of the store notice. In fact, he is exempting himself from civil liability for breach of contract. This self-defense The act of disclaiming liability clearly violates the principles of fairness and good faith stipulated in the law and damages the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, so it is invalid.

However, not all such format contracts, notices, statements, store notices, etc. set up by operators themselves are invalid. For example, "if you get a fake, you will get ten for a fake" is the merchant's promise to consumers to sell genuine goods. , that is to say, as long as a customer buys a fake product in the store, the store is willing to bear the obligation to compensate the consumer ten times the purchase price. This kind of commitment is the true expression of the merchant's intention. Its content does not violate national laws and regulations and social public interests. It is a legal and effective civil legal act. Once consumers buy fake goods, they can claim compensation from the merchant accordingly.