The company wants to refund the customer, but both are waiting for the other to act

I read on the Facebook page of the Association Voice of Entrepreneurs that the company delivered the wrong bed to the customer and is willing to correct its mistake by covering the incurred costs (not all) and refunding the money. The customer, on the other hand, is first asking for a refund, while the company wants the return of the goods.

Although the company’s representative seems to be a correct businessman (he even publicly mentioned which company it is in response to a participant’s question), to avoid creating additional negative publicity for the company, I decided not to mention its name. However, I do not agree with one of the representative’s positions, but I will first briefly describe the issue at hand.

So, the manager sought advice from ‘more experienced colleagues’ because he had a situation in online sales after the wrong product (worth 486.99 euros) was sent to the customer. The company accepted responsibility and offered the customer the following: they will organize the pickup of the bed at their expense and refund the full amount after the goods are returned to the warehouse.

However, the customer demands that the company first refund him, and only then will he return the bed because, as the company’s manager relays the customer’s words, he does not trust that the company will refund the money after picking up the goods.

The law is clear

However, the company also does not trust that the customer will return the bed. This is where the tug-of-war began. ‘Of course, we are willing to bear all costs and resolve the situation correctly, but we want to avoid the risk of refunding the money and the goods not being returned or arriving damaged,’ writes the manager. And the Consumer Protection Act, which the company’s manager refers to, clearly states that the customer must first return the goods within 14 days after unilaterally terminating the contract with the supplier and only then receives the money.

The customer, on the other hand, claims (according to what the manager writes in his post): ‘Given the previous inaccuracies and contradictory information during the purchase and delivery process and the fact that the product does not match what was presented on your website, I do not trust that the refund will be processed after the product is picked up.’

Respecting the customer’s doubt, the law is on the seller’s side here. Therefore, I would advise the customer, like others in this discussion, to accept the proposal to first return the bed and then receive the money back. If he does not receive it, he has the option of suing, which is indeed a hassle, but it is also dangerous for the company’s reputation. I believe that no businessman wants to risk losing their reputation over a trivial 486.99 euros, especially since I have the impression that this manager is correct. He identified himself by name, mentioned the company’s name, admitted that he made a mistake, and is willing to bear the costs of returning the bed.

And that’s not all: in response to comments, the manager announced news that was not mentioned in the post. He wrote that he would accept the return because the product was wrong, ‘only that the customer has already disassembled the product and used it, also asking us to bear the cost of disassembling it. Of course, we did not accept that,’ the manager stated.

The manager is wrong

In this case, I believe that the manager is wrong and should bear the disassembly cost. Namely, when a customer buys a bed in parts, they cannot (because they are not an expert) assess whether it is the correct bed until they see it assembled. At best, they can know if it is the ordered bed when the assembly is completed.

Therefore, manufacturers (in this case, furniture) must keep in mind that almost no customer can know based on the disassembled parts that they have received the ordered goods. Given that the manager honestly stated (even correctly quoting the customer’s words that do not favor him) that the company, as the seller, is at fault for the wrong delivery, precisely because of that mistake, the customer unnecessarily incurred the assembly cost (which must be refunded), and therefore should not bear the disassembly cost either.

Since the manager said he would bear all costs, I believe that this includes both the assembly and disassembly of the bed. I hope that the customer and the company will reach an agreement very soon – the customer must first return the goods, and the company must pay all unnecessary costs incurred.

POST SCRIPTUM

I recently had a similar situation, but with a different epilogue. A family member bought an apartment, but since she does not live in Zagreb, a bed (in parts) was delivered to my building. I was not clear how such small packages could be assembled into a bed, so I alerted my cousin to double-check with the seller if that was the correct product. To cut a long story short, in the end, a good bed was assembled from those small elements. With this example, I want to show that we customers are not experts in assessing whether the goods are good until we see them in their entirety.