Needless to say, the answer is clear. This situation is similar to? Meat buns hit dogs? The result is basically? Will you leave and never come back? Yes

First, high-priced pendants are sold at low prices and recovered after one month.

Speaking of this, I really feel a little wronged for this buyer.

It is reported that Ms. Zhou and her husband in Shanghai belong to long-distance lovers, and her husband works in Hangzhou. In June this year, in order to have a meaningful wedding anniversary, Ms. Zhou specially rushed back to Hangzhou from Shanghai to spend it with her husband. On the same day, the two went to a jewelry store in the city to buy goods. At that time, they took a fancy to a string of 65438+ 10 million ruby pendants, and finally bought them at a price of more than 8000 yuan.

It stands to reason that the business is what you want, and between the two parties, you can pay for it on one hand and deliver it on the other. If there is no quality problem, business is basically the same. Settings? Yes

However, who would have thought that more than a month later, the staff of the jewelry store said that it was the negligence of the employees, and mistook the ruby pendant worth nearly 80,000 yuan for a ruby pendant worth more than 1000 yuan, and gave it to Ms. Zhou, asking Ms. Zhou to return this string of jewelry pendants.

Seeing this, Ms. Zhou was shocked. Because it looks like a scam, she asked the other party to do identity authentication. In this process, the two sides held many consultations and failed to make effective progress. Finally, the jeweler sued Ms. Zhou to the court.

Second, the dispute between the two sides.

In fact, not only Ms. Zhou has doubts, but the average person will also express doubts. Besides, how much should I bring? Not convinced? .

Because everything is sold out, and after a long time, suddenly give a reason to say? Sell it wrong? Is it really a bit inappropriate to ask buyers to return goods? Common sense? .

However, some seemingly unreasonable things have been rationalized.

This incident is similar to the bank giving customers the wrong change and asking them to refund the money. According to the reasons given by the bank, does the customer belong to this category? Unjust gain? .

In this case, Ms. Zhou, as the buyer, is actually the same as the customer of the bank, and is also regarded as? Unjust gain? .

Having said that, I thought of another very similar example:

A friend around me once bought fruit at a fruit stand on the street. Due to the different size and quality of fruits, the price of the same fruit category also varies greatly. At that time, my friend wanted to buy inferior fruit with relatively low price, and bought dozens of pounds at once. As a result, maybe there were too many people, and the boss somehow installed the highest-priced batch for his friends. Crucially, my friends paid the bill without knowing it. Then, not long after I left, I heard the shouts of the fruit stall owner. At that time, a group of people were chatting while walking, and they didn't pay attention, thinking that the stall owner might be shouting at others.

The next day, when we passed the stall owner again, the boss smiled and told us that the wrong fruit was loaded last night and the money was miscalculated. In short, I said a lot, and my friend was embarrassed. Just as my friend was well-advised to pay for the difference, the boss smiled heroically and said, "This is my personal problem. This is not right. You don't have to make up the change, just give it to you. " Best of all, my friend insisted on making up the difference to the boss.

Looking back on my friend's experience, it is actually very similar to Ms. Zhou. But fortunately, friends and bosses are considerate people, a person who has never been greedy for petty gains, and a generous person who doesn't care.

Of course, strictly speaking, this friend's case is somewhat different from Ms. Zhou's case. After all, Ms. Zhou's question is obviously much more difficult. Jewelry, for example, involves a large amount of money and may involve legal and regulatory issues.

Third, what is the final result?

Objectively speaking, Ms. Zhou actually has no principled mistakes. First, she didn't know at first; Secondly, she didn't express the desire for possession. Third, she is skeptical about jewelry stores, which is also the normal thinking logic that adults should have.

So, who is right to say this? In fact, the answer is self-evident.

Finally, when the court conducted mediation, it didn't emphasize too much? Major misunderstanding? 、? Negligence liability? And other issues, but from the charity of collecting money, so as to move Ms. Zhou and finally get understanding.

Finally, Ms. Zhou agreed to testify in court? One-handed return and one-handed refund? And the jewelry store bears Ms. Zhou's round-trip transportation expenses. Later, Ms. Zhou also received a banner from the jewelry store. Where is it? Noble character and an example to learn? Eight big characters, very eye-catching

It can also be seen from this incident that there are some things, not just one thing? Why? You can make it clear, make it clear. Sincere communication, caring for each other and thinking from each other's point of view are more important than anything else. In addition, from Ms. Zhou, we also learned to be aboveboard and not greedy for petty gains.

4. If 8000 sells 80000, what will happen?

80,000 gems sell for 8,000, and merchants take back their own from consumers? Legitimate interests? This is a feasible behavior. And selling 80 thousand for 80 thousand becomes a consumer suing the merchant for recovery? Legitimate interests? Is this feasible? The answer is obviously not feasible.

Because the value of jewelry products is difficult to identify. For example, where do you know those antique cultural relics in Ma Weidou, and what is their real value? In addition, it is difficult for consumers to control the level of commodity prices. Moreover, in this world, many things are not absolutely fair, and it is inevitable that one party's interests will be damaged in business transactions, because nothing is absolutely equal, it is just your wish.

Therefore, it is almost impossible for consumers to sue back if they sell for 80 thousand.

what do you think?