Original title: Let “Returns Without Reasons” Cover the Offline Line and Make “Canada Goose” No Time to Drill
On February 13, 2014, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce promulgated the “Administrative Measures for Online Transactions”. According to Article 25 of Chapter 3 of the “Consumer Rights Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China”, operators use the Internet, television, telephone, mail order, etc. When selling goods, consumers have the right to return the goods within seven days from the date of receipt of the goods without giving reasons. Consumer-ordered, fresh and perishable, online downloads or consumer unpacked audio-visual products, computer software and other digital products, delivered newspapers, periodicals, and other products that are not suitable for return based on the nature of the product and confirmed by the consumer at the time of purchase Commodities are not included in the category of “returns without reason for seven days shopping online”.
According to existing laws and regulations, offline shopping has not yet been included in the category of “seven days without reason to return goods”. During the period of March 15 this year, the State Administration of Market Supervision and China Central Radio and Television jointly initiated the initiative of a large number of physical store operators to actively participate in the seven-day unreasonable return commitment activity. According to the person in charge of the State Administration of Market Supervision, consumers expect the seven-day unreasonable return system to achieve full online and offline coverage. Therefore, this initiative is launched and more companies are expected to participate.
Obviously, the current “seven days no reason to return” mainly refers to online shopping, and offline shopping cannot enjoy this treatment for the time being. Or to put it another way, it is a statutory obligation for online service merchants to return goods for seven days without reason, but it is not mandatory for offline merchants and needs to be determined according to the wishes of the merchants.
Therefore, Ms. Jia was previously required to sign the “replacement clause”, which can be regarded as Canada Goose specially set up the “other provisions of the law” in order to avoid disputes over returns. Some legal experts pointed out that this clause belongs to the overlord clause, and Ms. Jia who found obvious flaws has the right to return the goods. At present, the Canadian Goose official statement seems to be loose, but it also means that within the existing legal framework, other consumers who “have no way to prove the defect of the product” can still refund if they want to refund within seven days, or if they don’t want to refund, they will not refund.
But for a company, even if it can’t manage its protection of consumers’ right to regret shopping, it will also damage its brand image. In particular, Canada Goose is a high-end down jacket brand. Consumers buy one piece for tens of thousands. Faced with the cold non-return regulations of Canada Goose, they will vote with their feet in the future. This needs to be estimated by the Canadian Goose.
Regarding the deep-seated problems reflected in the Canadian Goose incident, I also hope that in the future, relevant departments can promote the integrated treatment of “seven days no reason to return goods” for online and offline shopping as soon as possible. After all, no matter which way to shop, consumers deserve the same rights. Seven-day unreasonable return gives consumers full choice and right to regret, instead of having to prove that a certain product has obvious defects in order to return it, it is not a Ms. Jia that is guaranteed, but countless people who can purchase with peace of mind through worry-free returns Of consumers.
Chengdu Commercial Daily-Red Star News Special Commentator Bi Ge
.