The Applicable Scope Of The No Reason-to-return Commodity System

Law of the PRC on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of Consumers ("the Consumer Law") has been revised in October 25,2013. Article 25 of the Consumer Law provides that consumers in the case of purchasing goods through the Internet, television, telephone, mail order and other ways enjoy the right of no reason to return such commodity for seven days, which indicates the establishment of the system of no reason to return the commodity in our China. According to the revised Consumer Law, the no reason-to-return commodity system applies only in the Internet, television, mail order, telephone and other remote sales model, but is not applicable in other areas. The excluding in the applicable scope of the no reason-to-return commodity system contains:1) 4 types of statutory cases in the precluding application, namely consumer-made, fresh perishable, digital goods, delivered newspapers, periodicals; 2) the situation of agree to exclude, where by consumers’ recognition those should not be returned according to the commodity nature of the product while purchasing; 3) the goods is not intact when returning. According to the experience of extraterritorial law, the similar system is not only applicable in remote sales model, but also applies to non-business sales, field timeshare, consumer lending, whose precluding applications’ scope differs considerably from the relevant provisions in the revised Consumer Law of PRC. During the revision process of the Consumer Law, the definition of the no reason-to-return commodity system exists quite a controversy, so in the end the statutory exclusion situations are limited to 4 type of commodities reached a consensus merely in the amendments of the Consumer Law, and according to the nature of commodity the agreement of not suitable for returning terms is added as the fallback provision.A new type of right emerges, rooted in the interests protected by the rights having the urgent need to be recognized and protected by law in one hand, but the safeguarding the interests dilemma not be effectively solved by of the existing system of rights. Those interests’ urgent need to be recognized and protected by law is not only the legitimate basis to institutionalize the interest protection mechanism, but also is the in-depth response to the application scope of the system. When a legal system is to achieve the purpose of maintaining the order of law, the premise is clarify their specific scope. Then the accurate definition of the scope of application of the legal system should be established on the basis of the profound grasp of the legitimacy of the system. Furthermore, the clear definition of is the correspond re-verification and deepening understanding process of the legitimacy of the system.The revised Consumer Law is formally implemented on March 15,2014, in which establishes the no reason-to-return commodity system, which got recognition by consumers unanimously. As for in judicial practice there are many problems without a doubt, where mainly reflect the failing to reaching consensus of the scope of application of the no reason-to-return commodity system in the legislative process. In the beginning of construction of the legal system is abstract frequently, but social practice is usually complicated, the binary conflict of which leds to the weak guidelines and norms function of a newly constructed legal system. A clearly defined scope of the no reason-to-return commodity system, can effectively enhance the operability of the new law practice and the certainty of the application, effectively solve some problems arising in practice of the new law in the meantime, in order to protect the rights of consumers better, and promote the formation and development of legal faith ultimately.This article shall analyze the historical evolution, legitimacy basis and comparative law of the no reason-to-return commodity system, on the basis of which specific issues of the definition of the system’s applicable scope existing in the process through clear interpretation on the provisions of the system in the Consumer Law, and respond to the applicable scope of the no reason-to-return commodity system by empirical analysis and theoretical independently.The first part of the article recalls the historical evolution of the no reason-to-return commodity system, on the basis of the definition of the concept the no reason-to-return commodity system combines the context of the no reason-to-return commodity system from the two perspectives of the source and development of the no reason-to-return commodity system. The second part of the article demonstrates the legitimacy basis of the no reason-to-return commodity system, namely in a non-business premises, distance selling and other special trading patterns the consumer’s decision-making freedom will be hampered. A legal system to achieve the purpose of maintaining the order of law should be based on reasonable definition of the scope of application of the system as a precondition, thus the necessity to define the applicable scope of the no reason-to-return commodity system can be argued. The third part of the article focuses on the comparative study between domestic law and foreign law of the no reason-to-return commodity system. The fourth part of the article interprets the no reason-to-return commodity system by interpreting articles of the revised Consumer Law, clarifies that the no reason-to-return commodity system only applies to remote areas merchandise sales model, and does not apply to services area. The nature of the goods not suitable for returning, confirmation obligation agreed upon, the goods intact criteria is the focus of definition of the exclusion application provisions of the no reason-to-return commodity system. The fifth part of the article select the Return Policy in 5 well-known websites as the empirical analysis object, combines with the legislative study at home and abroad of precluding application rule of the no reason-to-return commodity system as set forth previously excluded due to return no legislative basis for the application of the system of research at home and abroad, with a view to answer the three big problems of definition of precluding applicable terms of the no reason-to-return commodity system raised in the fourth part of the terms.