Recently, the Beijing Fourth Intermediate People's Court concluded a second instance case involving a "seven day no reason return" case. Buyer Xiao Wu applied for a return of goods after online shopping, but due to defects in the returned goods, not only did he not receive the seller's consent, but the court also rejected his lawsuit request after he brought the case to court. Xiao Wu placed an order on a certain shopping platform to purchase a karaoke sound system. After the goods arrived, Xiao Wu felt that the sound quality was not satisfactory during the trial, so he applied for a "seven day no reason return". The next day, the merchant agreed to return the product for a refund and left a message saying, "Please keep the outer packaging box of the product intact, the accessories complete, the machine free of scratches and wear, and not affect secondary sales. Otherwise, we will reject it and refuse the refund. A few days later, the platform prompted Xiao Wu that the merchant refused to sign for the express delivery and refused to refund, citing obvious water stains and scratches on the product. Xiao Wu denied the seller's claim. Due to repeated requests for returns and refunds being rejected by the platform, Xiao Wu sued the seller to the court, requesting a judgment on the return and refund. The first instance court held that it could not determine that the defects in the goods were caused by the merchant, and therefore did not support Xiao Wu's request for a return and refund. Xiao Wu appealed against the decision. In the second instance stage, Beijing Fourth Intermediate People's Court once again confirmed that the merchant had fully fulfilled the obligation of notification and inspection during the transaction process. Meanwhile, due to Xiao Wu's failure to provide evidence to support his claim that the goods were intact when the package was sent out, it is not possible to attribute the product defects to the merchant. Finally, Xiao Wu's appeal was rejected and the original verdict was upheld. The verdict in this case has now come into effect. The judge reminds consumers that applying for a "seven day no reason return" is not an "unconditional return", and they should ensure that the goods are in good condition and do not affect secondary sales. For how to determine "intact", if the parties have agreed, they shall follow the agreement, and if there is no agreement, they shall refer to the transaction customs. Consumers should proactively retain evidence to prove that the product was in good condition at the time of return. (New Society)