Mr. Luo said that when she bought the floor, Ms. Chen, the salesman and manager, verbally promised that the extra wooden floor could be returned to them as long as it was a whole piece, but when Mr. Luo really wanted to return the extra 26 floors, the other party said that it could not be returned. The other party refused to return the goods because it did not unpack the package itself under the guidance of the installer, so it insisted on not returning the goods.
Mr. Luo admitted that he chose the floor, but he worked with the installer. So, what is the truth? The reporter immediately dialed the phone number of Ms. Chen, the manager of this store, and wanted to know the situation from her, but the interview was not smooth.
Reporter: Hello, I'm a reporter from the Economic Voice "Everyday 3 15" of China National Broadcasting Station. We want to ask you something. Is it convenient for you now?
Ms. Chen: I have something to do now.
Reporter: Just two minutes.
Ms. Chen: We have clients here now. sorry
The manager was unwilling to be interviewed by the reporter, and then the reporter found the owner of this store, Mr. Qiao. He also talked with Mr. Luo about the 26th floor. After the call was connected, the reporter explained the situation, and Mr. Qiao expressed his willingness to be interviewed.
Mr. Qiao: When the floor leaves the factory, we repeatedly told him that it would not be returned after unpacking, and after unpacking, he scratched all my boards and damaged the floor. Now the industrial and commercial bureau has also come to verify it, and it is also ok to go to court. No problem, I'm not afraid of any problems in this matter.
In this interview, the reporter clearly heard a reason, that is, Mr. Luo broke the floor, so he could not return it. Moreover, Joe insisted that Lao Luo open the bag and install the floor himself. Throughout the interview, Joe always stressed that the 26 floors can be returned if they are only unpacked, but the floor was damaged by Mr. Luo, so it cannot be returned.
So, is it the rule or the rhetoric of this natural wood floor shop? The reporter once again asked Joe's boss for proof.
Reporter: Is that what you said, or does the whole flooring industry have this regulation?
Mr. Qiao: Our flooring industry has always been unpacking and not returning, because the floor color is different, black and red. If the customer insists on knocking, he just can't knock for him. If you choose, I won't do it for you.
This matter has been delayed for a long time now, and it has not been solved accordingly. Besides, everyone has heard that both sides have a tough attitude and both think that the 26th floor should stay in the other side, which is the best. Bao Hua, a special commentator of Economic Voice, believes that whether the 26-story building is damaged is the focus of dispute between the two sides-consumers think it is not damaged and businesses think it is damaged. So how to solve it?
Bao Hua said, this is actually very simple. You can find a third-party organization or industry association, or even a natural floor manufacturer, and let them evaluate whether these floors are in good condition. If it is really damaged, the responsibility lies with consumers, who should stop making any demands; If it is not damaged, it can continue to be sold and used, then it will be taken back by the merchant. It is good for both parties to have an objective standard. The key is that neither side recognizes the standards proposed by the other. To solve this problem, it is more appropriate for merchants, industry associations or third-party appraisal institutions to make a neutral ruling.
Zheng Chuankai, a lawyer of Beijing Chaoyang Law Firm, believes that if Mr. Luo breaks the floor, the merchant has the right to refuse to return it. In fact, both parties can go to court. This kind of appearance judgment can be made with the naked eye, and it is very appropriate for the court or arbitration institution to make a ruling. Even if it involves professional issues, it can also be entrusted to identify.
If Mr. Luo didn't break the floor, the merchant insisted on not returning the goods on the grounds of opening the package. Zheng Chuankai believes that this is legally untenable. First of all, Mr. Luo suggested that he had recorded evidence to prove that the two sides changed this clause through oral agreement. If the evidence can prove this, then it is not applicable for the merchant to insist on not returning the goods out of the box.
In addition, Zheng Chuankai believes that even if Mr. Luo does not provide corresponding evidence, he can also request to declare the "overlord clause" invalid in the process of litigation and arbitration, and ask the merchant to fulfill the obligation of returning goods.
Now the two sides hold their own words, and some vouchers are the bills when buying the floor at that time, which say that the package will not be refunded; And all the telephone recordings of Mr. Luo. If we really want to go to court to solve this problem and resort to the law, are these two coupons legally efficient?
Zheng Chuankai believes that this issue should be discussed separately first. According to the evidence theory, documentary evidence is more efficient than audio-visual materials, but in this case, documentary evidence and recording have a sequence, and its application field is the field of elimination of law. Therefore, if Mr. Luo Can proves that the recording mentioned the change of this clause, the audio-visual materials should be more effective than documentary evidence in this case.