Replacement Claim for Wine Purchased on Behalf of Claimant 게시글 상세보기 - 등록일, 조회수, 첨부파일, 상세내용, 이전글, 다음글 제공
Replacement Claim for Wine Purchased on Behalf of Claimant
Date
2024-12-17
Hit
122
A. On September 7, 2022, the Claimant and the Respondent entered into a buying agent contract (“Contract”) to purchase wine (“Product”) via the Respondent’s website. The Claimant paid the price of the Product and a service fee to the Respondent.
B. The Claimant received the Product on September 22, 2022 and opened the bottle on September 24 but complained to the Respondent that the Product was deteriorated, i.e., boiled and leaked due to changes in temperature and air pressure.
C. Regarding wine, the Respondent’s website states in the notice dated August 29, 2022 that “[r]eplacement or refund is unavailable for deterioration (applicable to shipments on or after September 1, 2022).” On the other hand, the Respondent states that “[w]e are preparing a new policy to compensate for wine leak due to deterioration” in the notice dated October 18, 2022.
A. Claimant’s AllegationThe Claimant wants to have the defective Product replaced.
B. Respondent’s AllegationThe Respondent points out that the Respondent has already announced on the website that replacement or refund is not available for deteriorated wine. The Respondent also asserts that exposure to a temperature of ≥ 31°C for more than three hours can lead to wine’s structural decline. Deterioration is highly likely to occur during transportation in Japan as Tokyo, Japan, was over 31°C at the time of shipment; therefore, it is not a defective Product.
The contracted service involves the Respondent providing information on goods available for purchase overseas via the website and offering to buy/import such goods on behalf of customers, which is governed by the Act on Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce as it falls under “Buying Agent for Shopping Malls” pursuant to Article 2 of the Standard Terms of Services on International Shopping (Buying Agent for Shopping Mall), conducted through electronic commerce.According to Article 17(3) of the same Act and Article 13 of the same Terms of Service, if the goods are different from the indication or advertisement or the contracted service has deviated from the contract, the consumer may withdraw his/her purchase order within three months of the date of shipping or within 30 days of the date when he/she became aware of or could have been aware of such fact. The Claimant demanded that the Respondent cancel the purchase order two days after receiving the Product. Therefore, the Claimant duly showed intention to withdraw the order within the period specified in the same Act.On the other hand, the Respondent’s notice that replacement or refund is unavailable for deterioration violates the provisions of Articles 17 to 19 of the same Act, which is unfavorable to consumers and is invalid under Article 35 of the same Act.Since it is an undisputed fact that the Product deteriorated and the contracted service was not performed according to the Contract, the Respondent should accept the withdrawal of the purchase order under Article 18 of the same Act and refund the price to the Claimant when the Claimant returns the Product.However, the Claimant wants replacement instead of refund, and our arbitration is intended to resolve the dispute through concessions and reconciliation between the parties. Therefore, the Respondent should replace the wine with a new product of the same type at the Respondent's cost.
The Respondent shall replace the wine with a new product of the same type by April 17, 2023 at the Respondent's cost.
(Applicable Laws: Act on Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce, Articles 2, 17, and 18; Standard Terms of Services on International Shopping (Buying Agent for Shopping Mall), Articles 2, 13, 14, and 15)
