Two years ago, Mr. Wang, a netizen, negligently "returned" poison furniture to his home. After negotiating with the manufacturer, the manufacturer promised to return the product but charged a depreciation fee. Mr. Wang felt a little stumped and called the reporter of this newspaper to ask whether this depreciation fee should be paid? The lawyer said that there is a problem with the manufacturer's products first, and it is unreasonable to charge depreciation.
Low consciousness "poison gas" enters home
In June 2009, Mr. Wang selected a set of furniture for a newly renovated wedding room in a home store. At that time, the sales staff said that the furniture was made of solid wood, safe and environmentally friendly. At that time, Mr. Wang believed that the solid wood material was definitely environmentally friendly and the price was appropriate. Without looking at the product's environmental certification and quality inspection report, he bought ten pieces of furniture, including beds and wardrobes, from the merchants. But as soon as the furniture moved into the house, he began to emit a pungent odor, and Mr. Wang thought "it will be fine for a while". Unexpectedly, this release is almost two years. Now, this set of furniture still exudes a pungent smell. In desperation, Mr. Wang can only concentrate the furniture in a room and seal it.
Dilemma of rights protection
"After two years, there is still a pungent odor, indicating that the harmful substances such as formaldehyde in the furniture have exceeded the standard. But after the three guarantee period has passed, will the manufacturer still recognise the account?" Mr. Wang started to drum up. So he first consulted a furniture inspection center about the situation. A staff member of the center said that the purchase of furniture for two years is in the early stage of formaldehyde release. If a nonconformity is detected at this time, it can be used as a proof of rights protection. The staff further pointed out that consumers can provide the first half of the square meters of the problem furniture to be tested, and there is no need to notify the manufacturer. If the test result is unqualified, Mr. Wang can directly take the test report issued by the center to protect the rights. At the same time, this staff member asked Mr. Wang to provide the "Furniture Instruction Manual" of the furniture, because the above will clearly indicate the material of the furniture and its quality implementation standards, and we will use this to measure the inspection results. If there is no instruction manual, at least the basic information of the furniture materials specified in the contract can be provided to see whether it is solid wood, large core board or composite board. According to the material, refer to relevant standards for testing. However, Mr. Wang only discovered at this time that the furniture contract did mention that the furniture instruction manual should accompany the furniture, but the manufacturer did not give him, and the contract did not indicate the material of the furniture and the implementation standards.
Mr. Wang also tried to communicate with the manufacturer. They said that they can return the goods without detection, but they should be depreciated at a daily depreciation rate of 0.1%. So after counting, Mr. Wang can only get back half of the cost of buying furniture at that time. Mr. Wang thinks this is very unreasonable, "Family suffered poisoning from problematic furniture, and will have to spend money without compensation."
How to protect the rights of lawyers
In response to Mr. Wang's situation, Qiu Baochang, a consultant lawyer of the China Consumer Association, conducted a detailed analysis. It is pointed out that first of all, although the product has passed the three-guarantee period, as long as the product has quality problems and defects when it is sold, the manufacturer is responsible, but the premise is that the consumer must prove that the product does indeed cause harm to the user's interests or body damage.
In addition, if consumers want to send furniture for inspection, they must first choose a nationally certified testing institution, and it is best to determine an institution that is recognized by both parties after consultation with the manufacturer. Although it is okay for consumers to submit inspections unilaterally, manufacturers may question whether furniture samples collected by consumers themselves come from their products. Therefore, if the consumer wants to submit the inspection unilaterally, it is best to record the sampling process, seal the sample or notarize. After consultation with the manufacturer, sampling by an organization recognized by both parties or by a third party designated organization such as a consumer association is a method that is not likely to cause controversy. The "Furniture Instruction Manual", which indicates the product material and quality execution label, should be attached to the furniture. Most of the environmental standards adopted by many furniture manufacturers exceed the national minimum standards. For example, the manufacturer claims that its product meets the E1 level standard and indicates in the instruction manual that if the test finds that it is lower than the E1 level, then the manufacturer will constitute a breach of contract and the consumer may receive corresponding compensation. In the case of Mr. Wang, which has no instruction manual and the contract does not indicate the material of the furniture, the manufacturer can only be informed and issued a certificate for further testing.
Furthermore, the state stipulates that a certain depreciation fee can be charged for returns within the three guarantee period. However, if there are defects in its own products, especially those that are harmful to people's bodies like Mr. Wang's furniture, not only should not be charged depreciation fees, but consumers should be compensated materially and spiritually. Even if the product is consumed due to use, the depreciation charge should not be the mandatory daily 0.1%, but it needs to be negotiated between the buyer and the seller.
Based on the above analysis, Qiu Baochang believes that the quickest solution that consumers can take at present is to negotiate with the manufacturer. If the two parties reach a consensus on the existing problems in the furniture itself, then there may be no need for testing, and Mr. Wang can be compensated accordingly. However, if the negotiation is unsuccessful, rights can also be defended through complaints and prosecutions, which is relatively troublesome.
Finally, Qiu Baochang reminded consumers that consumer disputes caused by furniture environmental protection issues occur from time to time, so when buying furniture, consumers should shop around, and pay more attention to the product environmental certification and quality inspection report to prevent purchase problems Furniture. In addition, you must have a sense of rights protection, and implement the manufacturer's commitment and important information of the product on the contract.
For more furniture information , go to http://news.gojiaju.com/
Welcome to provide news interview clues Advertising / News Hotline  Transfer 8004 QQ 543178208
Lubrication Pump System,Oil Lubrication Pump,Automatic Lubrication Pump,Grease Lubrication Pump
Yantai Ciso Lubrication Technology Co.,LTD , https://www.cisolubrication.com