The new phone has not been activated, can it be refunded and claimed in full?The court was sentenced

I bought a Taiwanese Apple mobile phone. Unexpectedly, when I activated, I found that the mobile phone had been activated in advance for ten days before the purchase. The buyer asked for a refund, but the seller refused on the grounds that the selling mobile phone was not a "refurbished machine". In desperation, the buyer went to the court to file a lawsuit and claimed that he would retire three.

Recently, the Jiangmen Pengjiang Court of Guangdong Province tried the dispute caused by the newly -purchased mobile phone. The court believes that if the first activation time for the purchased mobile phone is earlier than the time when the buyer receives the mobile phone, the buyer has the right to claim a refund, but because the seller's individual is not an operator specializing in mobile phone sales, the buyer claims that it will not be supported by three times compensation.

In December 2021, Mr. Li purchased a new Apple mobile phone from Chen by WeChat. When activated, he found that the phone had been activated in advance for ten days before the purchase. However, the seller Chen refused on the grounds that selling mobile phones was not a "refurbished machine". In desperation, Mr. Li went to the court to file a lawsuit and advocated that he would withdraw one three.

The court believes that evidence of the maintenance test report provided by Mr. Li and the display content of the mobile phone system involved in the case fully proves that the mobile phone involved has been activated before the purchase, and the after -sales warranty period is less than one year, and Chen may not be informed that the other party's mobile phone may be in the transaction process that may There is a situation where it is activated in advance, and the legal channels of mobile phone purchase are not available afterwards. It is impossible to prove that the mobile phone involved is a new first -hand mobile phone.

In addition, Article 55 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates the principle of punitive compensation for "refund one compensation three".

In this case, the individual seller Chen is not a specialized operator who is engaged in mobile phone sales, and does not meet the legal definition of the operator. Therefore, the plaintiff's behavior of purchasing mobile phones involved from the individual buyer's office cannot be protected by the law. Therefore, the punishment of Mr. Li has three times more compensation and lacks legal basis, and the court does not support it.

Judge said:

In order to reduce the risk of accidentally purchasing the "two mobile phones" and "renovation machine" to better protect consumers' rights and interests, consumers are advised to go to regular operating stores to buy mobile phones and check the condition of the mobile phone in time. If you suspect that new mobile phones are not new products, you can check the maintenance stores authorized by mobile phone manufacturers for testing and issue professional testing reports as evidence to effectively defend their rights.

Text/Guangzhou Daily · Xinhuacheng Reporter: Articles of Association Title Map/Guangzhou Daily Client Data Map (Graphic has nothing to do) Guangzhou Daily · Xinhuacheng Editor: Lin Jing

- END -