Right to refund

By Geronimo L. Sy
IT IS THE HOLIDAYS and the season for shopping. It is also the time to be frustrated with retail customer service that ranges from the “no exchange, no refund” policy to false marketing and defective goods. By and by and almost universal in the Philippines, sales people are the fastest and friendliest to close. But once your battered credit card is swiped, good luck, your money is gone forever. This is clearly a violation of our human right to buy and be happy.
Surely with the thousands of laws, at least one will help the stressed consumer? The Consumer Act provides refund, replace and repair (collectively known as the 3R’s) as reliefs in cases where the seller violates the prohibition against deceptive sales acts or practices, or unfair or unconscionable sales acts, or for breach of product or service warranties.

It is simple, let us see how it works.
Liza purchases a brand-new cellphone. After three months of normal use, its screen suddenly goes blank. The phone is dead no matter the hard resets or the extra charging. It is obviously a dud. She rushes across the metropolis to the store and the same salesperson says, “Madam, please proceed to the service center responsible for the repairs.” What is Liza to do except cry. Can you imagine life without a phone for five minutes?
Jeffrey received a vacuum cleaner as a gift. He tries it a few times but notices that the suction power is decreasing. He must bring the original receipt to the shop. The sales associate says “Sir, we need the original packaging.” Jeffrey goes to the landfill.
Mai bought a dress but from the comments of friends, realized that it made her look fat. She decides to return it in its original condition but was told that she can only exchange it in the same store for an item with the same or higher value.
There are variants to these familiar stories. All of them center on one thing — the helpless consumer. There may be the 3R’s but there is no relief for the consumer. He has no choice, no option, no nothing. The only recourse is either to pay up, live with whatever condition is imposed including keeping the product, or shut up.
Or one can complain. There is a series of DTI Administrative Orders on the complaint process which itself can be the subject of complaint for being cumbersome.
It is impunity of a different kind, the one that ignores the basic rights of a consumer, a taxpayer and a citizen.
The Consumer Act passed in 1992 is an obsolete law. It was legislated long before the rise of the middle class or the era of internet shopping. It is not consumer-friendly in its design. It is burdensome in implementation. Do we feel protected or abused as consumers is the relevant question to ask.
Addressing the cases above, Liza has the right to refund for breach of warranty by the seller of phone regardless of manufacturer or brand owner. However, she is injured simply by the wait of weeks when the store manager checks, verifies and validates. The refund here should be immediate. No excuses and no delay. Liza is not expected to fill out a complaint form.
Is Jeffrey supposed to keep the packaging with the type and volume of packing for the vacuum cleaner? He does not have faith in the brand and cannot be compelled to substitute another similar unit. Even if there are other products, he should not shell out more money for an item that he does not need from the manufacturer that he does not trust. The manager insists that the vacuum power will get stronger with more usage. Jeffrey files a complaint and eventually gets a refund after a series of hearings. By this time, his lost working hours is more than the cost of the appliance.
There is no right of refund in Mai’s situation. A change of mind does not entitle one to a refund. At least, most retailers allow for a change of item for the same or greater value.
With consumption driving development, consumers need a simpler law that is clear and hassle-free. Its smarter implementation against deny and delay tactics or imposition of unreasonable requirements is essential. As in any contract, if one party is shortchanged, one ought to be able to get the money back. Currently, it is skewed against the consumer who must spend time and effort and more money to exercise a right.
With 12% VAT one of the highest in the region, government action can boost the tax take from consumers who are better protected. With the legal infrastructure in place, it is a quality of life issue for the citizen against bad business practices.