BELLE, Her Brand Shoes Met With Water Discolouration, Consumers Demanded To Return Rejected.

Recently, received Ningbo Mr. Chen's complaint reflects that the "he she" brand shoes produced by BELLE group for his wife are seriously discolouration after water, and the problem of rejection is required.

Mr. Chen said that in the morning of April 5, 2013, he and his wife bought a pair of brown women's shoes in Zhejiang Ningbo Yintai department store (Tianyi shop), and spent more than 400 yuan. After paying the money, the wife put on new shoes. It happened to catch up with the rain at about 5 p.m., and when the shoes came into contact with the water, the shoe surface became discolourable. At around 8 p.m., the shoe looked more serious and black.

Mr. Chen bought his wife shoes for his wife.

Brand new leather shoes After a shower of rain, the problem of serious discolouration of shoes is really unexpected. In April 6, 2013, the second day after buying shoes, Mr. Chen went to Zhejiang Tianyun store, Ningbo Yintai department store, and found the staff of her counter, explaining the situation demanded return, but was refused by the clerk. Mr. Chen turned to find the after-sale service staff of Yintai department. Their attitude was very unfriendly, and said that the small ticket clearly said "rainy day is not suitable". You should wear it and refuse to return it.

Mr. Chen said that when he recalled buying shoes with his wife in April 5th, he did not mention that the salesmen of his shop did not mention that the shoes would change colour when they met with water. But now they say that two of our husband and wife can see the word "rainy day not suitable" on the third couplet of the small ticket (customer). But the first couplet of the small ticket and the second couplet do not have the word "rainy day not suitable".

Mr. Chen said, 400 yuan of "he she" brand new leather shoes, after the rain is serious discolouration, this quality is also too bad, oneself strongly request unreasonable to be returned.

{page_break}

　　 "Not to wear on rainy days" is not a king clause.

Ningbo, Zhejiang, Mr. Chen bought BELLE "he she" women's shoes, serious discoloration after water, asked to return goods, but refused to see the reason why merchants refused to return, it is unthinkable.

Shoes are worn at the foot. The road is rough, and there will be muddy water. I believe nobody will spend hundreds of dollars on shoes to pick up the path to destroy shoes. But the weather is uncertain. Even on the asphalt road, it is hard to avoid the morning and sunny weather. If it is the "express" of "he he" business: "rainy day should not be worn", that does not mean that consumers are asked to wear a pair of rain proof rubber shoes when they wear their shoes.

Of course, as clothing Shoes, hats and other clothing products, unless marked with rain proof characteristics of products, can not force ordinary fabric products can wind and rain, the "face" does not change color. But the problem is that the rain drenched fabric should be restored after drying. If not, the clothing, shoes and hats on the market will not become disposable goods, or wear on the body become "hundred changes Kong Kong".

Step by step, if we follow the businessman's "express" content to think - "rainy day should not be worn", then the following question mark emerges. Does this "express" warning mean that the shoes are defective products? If the manufacturers know that their products are defective in quality, they do not fulfill their obligations before the sale, but as Mr. Chen said, "the salesmen of the counters do not mention that the shoes will change color when they encounter water."

What needs to be further asked is that businessmen should put the product information that consumers should tell the most to consumers. It is not easy for consumers to find the "small ticket third party", but when consumers ask for a return, they are regarded as the reason for no return. This is not regarded as the "overlord clause" of merchants. As we all know, the "overlord clause" has a notable characteristic, that is, businesses may damage consumers' rights and interests when they predict their products are uncertain, and avoid legal obligations by way of standard contracts, and reduce their own responsibilities. The reason why merchants refuse Mr. Chen's return is an illustration.

In the process of goods, especially service provision, unexpected situations are always caused by uncertainty. Whenever this happens, the rights and interests of consumers can not be guaranteed. We are appealed to the relevant departments to increase punishments for the "overlord clause". Businesses should follow the principles of legality, fairness, honesty and credibility, abide by business ethics, and earnestly safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of consumers. Back to the original intention of this article, when businesses sell goods in uncertain circumstances to consumers adverse consequences, of course, more responsibility.