Case summary

In November 2020, the plaintiff surnamed Yi bought a hairdryer for 129 yuan ($17.70) from the online store owned by the defendant vendor. Subsequently, Yi asked for replacement service multiple times from the store in October 2021, June 2022, and March, April and May in 2023. On May 15, 2023, Yi applied for replacement service to the merchant again saying the hairdryer “had black stuff inside without the nozzle open". The merchant then arranged courier service to pick up the dryer on May 18. The next day, the merchant received the hairdryer, checked and cleaned it, and shipped the product back to Yi notifying Yi that the dryer was checked and cleaned and had no quality issues. Yi refused to accept the return on the grounds that it was not a new replacement. The package got lost afterwards, and Yi managed to obtain compensation of 129 yuan from the courier company.

Yi sued the merchant at the Beijing Internet Court (BIC), claiming that the merchant's refusal to replace the hairdryer in question with a new one constituted fraud, and requested compensation of 500 yuan from the merchant.

The merchant argued that the hairdryer involved did not meet the replacement requirements. In accordance with the after-sales service policy of the online store, within 15 days from the date of user receipt, in case of non-human-damage performance failure confirmed by the after-sales service center, the consumer can have the product replaced. However, the plaintiff obtained a replacement of the hairdryer five times from the defendant, maliciously exploiting the defendant’s after-sales service for personal gains. The defendant had previously provided the plaintiff with replacements of the relevant product instead of repair services on several occasions at their discretion, and their refusal to replace the product for a sixth time does not constitute any breach of contract. At the same time, the defendant did not engage in fraudulent behavior, had no subjective intent to defraud, and should not bear triple compensation liability. 

Main considerations

Civil fraud refers to acts of intentionally providing the other party with false information or intentionally concealing the true situation during the process of establishing, changing, or terminating civil rights and obligations on which the other party relies.

The plaintiff purchased goods from the defendant, so there existed an online buying and selling contract relationship between the two parties. Evidence in the case showed that the defendant had previously publicized the after-sales policy related to returns, exchanges, and warranties of the goods in question. The plaintiff's repeated requests for replacements over the years also indicated that the plaintiff should have been aware of the specific applicable rules. The plaintiff failed to provide evidence proving that the hairdryer that was returned to the defendant had any functional failures affecting its normal use, apart from dirt on the nozzle. Therefore, the defendant's action of cleaning the hairdryer and returning it to the plaintiff was neither inappropriate nor did it cause the fundamental purpose of the sales contract to fail. The consequences of the plaintiff refusing the delivery, failing to check it promptly, and causing the loss of the goods should be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff admitted in court the fact of receiving compensation of 129 yuan for the goods from the logistics company through his own negotiations with the logistics company, with no other losses incurred. Therefore, the court decided not to support the plaintiff's claims, which lacked factual and legal basis. 

Details of the judgement

The BIC rejected all the claims from the plaintiff. The judgment has now taken effect. 

Tips from the judge

When engaging in civil activities, civil entities should adhere to the principles of fairness, honesty, and integrity, and must not abuse their civil rights to harm national interests, public interests, or the legitimate rights of others. Nowadays, more and more businesses are willing to provide consumers with more convenient services. On the other hand, consumers should not make improper demandsout of self-interest that contradict fairness and honesty. The rejection of the improper demands made by the consumer in this case is to maintain the normal market trading order and serves as a warning to those consumers who try to exploit loopholes in the rules and take advantage of their position in the trading relationship.