Da Vinci retired 860,000 consumers but refused to return the furniture

The Hangzhou consumer sued the "Da Vinci Home" fraud case. It was just in the Gongshu District Court in July this year. The consumer won and got back more than 3 million yuan. Yesterday, Hangzhou had another case related to "Da Vinci Home" in the Shangcheng District Court. But this time it was "Da Vinci" told consumers: refused to return furniture.

Ms. Chen from Hangzhou is in her early 30s, a wife of a chairman. In March last year, Da Vinci furniture worth 860,000 was set up. On July 6, "Da Vinci" was delivered to the door. Four days later, CCTV's "Weekly Quality Report" revealed that Da Vinci furniture was suspected of "fake import" and "fake solid wood". Like most consumers, Ms. Chen also rushed to the Da Vinci home store to denounce. Finally, the two parties signed the "Return Agreement." The payment was refunded, but Ms. Chen refused to return the furniture. It has been more than a year now. Yesterday, Hangzhou Da Vinci Trading Co., Ltd. ("Da Vinci Home" in Hangzhou Branch) and Ms. Chen went to court.

The payment was refunded, and the workers kept the furniture for two days and two nights without returning the furniture.

Yesterday, Da Vinci did not ask a lawyer. The company has two people as principals. In the court, they did not publicize the top luxury imported by Da Vinci furniture, but it seemed to be full of grievances: the payment of 860,000 yuan was retired in July last year, but the furniture is still in Ms. Chen’s home, which has been 455 days.

"Da Vinci" believes that Ms. Chen is in violation of the "Return Agreement", so in addition to the request for the return of furniture and invoices, this day's loss of furniture usage fees, but also to recover.

"Our customers are high-end people. It can be said that buying furniture is a kind of enjoyment, so even if the furniture is returned, it is old. We can't sell it, we can't renovate it, and the loss is very big."

They moved out of the terms of the product quality three packs and calculated the depreciation charge at 0.1% of the total daily price. In this way, 860,000 pieces of furniture will cost 860 yuan per day, and then multiplied by 455 days. The second claim for "Da Vinci" is to compensate for the loss of more than 390,000 yuan.

Ms. Chen did not appear in court yesterday, she invited a lawyer.

“Quality Three Guarantees is for qualified products that meet the national standards. You were unable to provide furniture origin and customs declaration at that time. How come the furniture usage fee?”

At the beginning of the trial, there was some smell of gunpowder.

However, the "Da Vinci" side still shows the meaning of wishing to negotiate from time to time. Even in their opinion, they were "swinged" by Ms. Chen.

"At the time, we said that when the refund was received, the workers would let the workers pull the furniture. On the same day, Ms. Chen let us enter the community, but after confirming the account the next day, it changed face and no longer took care of us." Da Vinci said that their workers stayed at the door of Ms. Chen’s community for 2 days and 2 nights, but the mansion community was very strict.

After that, she contacted Ms. Chen several times and the other party simply did not answer the phone. "Da Vinci" finally dialed the phone of Ms. Chen's husband, saying that if they still choose furniture, they can give a price concession, but the other party throws a sentence, "Either give you 50,000 yuan, if you exceed it, you can avoid talking." hang up.

Before the court session yesterday, "Da Vinci" also hoped to mediate. "But the price tag given by Ms. Chen is really too big."

Consumers believe that they should pay a loss, and only the compensation is refunded.

For the almost sorrowful statement of "Da Vinci", Ms. Chen’s lawyers calmly rebutted.

He said that this "return agreement" only has a name. From the content of the agreement, the two sides did not agree to a refund.

Although the first clause of the contract, "Da Vinci" agreed to return. However, following the second article, the agreement “Da Vinci” will hand over the certificate of origin and customs declaration of the product to the guest within 7 working days, and let the customer judge whether the product is imported from Italy.

This means that Ms. Chen has two options: retreat and no refund. However, within 7 days, "Da Vinci" did not provide relevant documents, so Ms. Chen had reason to believe that "Da Vinci" could not provide. That is to say, Da Vinci furniture has false propaganda and fraudulent consumer behavior, so according to the Consumer Protection Law, "Da Vinci" should be paid for one, "so we think 'Da Vinci' is a unilateral fight This is not a return, but a compensation."

Ms. Chen’s lawyer said that after the payment was received, the “Da Vinci” refund was delayed, and because of this premise, they had the right to retain the furniture. "And this piece of furniture, Ms. Chen has not been used, and it still occupies the space at home. We have not counted this furniture storage fee."

This speech landed, the client of "Da Vinci" subconsciously pushed the glasses, "Lien? I heard it for the first time." Slowly, he stressed loudly, "They didn't give us any room for negotiation." ."

In fact, when negotiating the return, the two sides were unhappy, and Da Vinci also reported the police. "Da Vinci" said, "Because CCTV is exposed, we can understand the emotions of consumers. At the time, there was another sentence on the contract: If Ms. Chen agreed not to retreat, 'Da Vinci' thinks that this is the support of the guests, she will give her A very favorable discount." But Ms. Chen insisted on returning.

"When we make a refund at the bank, the finances of the other company are also followed. The refund is very clear. How can we not reach an agreed return? Since we have to return the goods and the sales relationship is gone, we are not obligated to provide the certificate of origin. And the customs clearance." Da Vinci's client was a little excited. "If you agree to buy furniture now, we still give you a discount."

"We don't agree." Chen's lawyer is arrogant.

In Hangzhou, a total of 2 people returned the goods at the time.

Yesterday, the court debate was very intense. As for "Da Vinci", is there any proof of origin and customs declaration for furniture? The client of "Da Vinci" just stressed that if Ms. Chen buys their furniture, they can provide it immediately.

As for the question of Dafenchi furniture "fake import" and "fake export", the client said, "Hangzhou's Da Vinci home opened only in January last year. After CCTV exposure, many people asked for a return, but finally saw us. After the quality certificate provided, there was no refund. In Hangzhou, only 2 people returned the goods. Recently we have to open a branch in Hangzhou and are in the process of renovation."

The judge did not agree with Ms. Chen’s counterclaim yesterday. The reason for Ms. Chen’s counterclaim is that “Da Vinci” has no corresponding origin and customs declaration, and there are fraudulent and false propaganda acts. According to the law, the court should pay one for each. The court said that it will deal with another case. In other words, Ms. Chen is going to sue separately.

Yesterday, Guo Ping, deputy secretary-general of Hangzhou Xiacheng Consumers Association, told reporters that if consumers have evidence that Da Vinci furniture has serious quality problems and is suspected of defrauding consumers, it can ask for a refund, and the value of the product. Nothing, this is supported by the elimination of law.