Law Firm Visited
Many people said that there would be injustice on the buyer's side, so I went to a law firm in front of Daegu District Court this morning and received legal advice for 50,000 won in 30 minutes...
As a result, they said that there was no liability for fraud or compensation.
They didn't speak favorably to me.
I explained everything about the difference between Tubler and Cleancher, the difference in demand, and the difference in consumable prices,
and submitted call records scripts and text message records as objective data for confirmation.
1. Reasons why it is not considered fraud
- It is difficult to say that property damage occurred because there was no functional defect regarding the normal operation of the product.
- Even if parts are not available at all, and the unit price is relatively expensive, it cannot be said that property benefits have been infringed.
- The fact that it was already purchased at a price lower than the market price can be considered by the court as a criterion for judging that the buyer took the risk.
- Fraud under criminal law requires [deception + resulting property damage] to be established, but neither condition is met.
2. Reasons why it is not considered deception
- Absence of false statements: There is no evidence that the seller made any false statements about the product or specifications.
- Specifications and maintenance costs are within the scope that buyers can check before the transaction, so it cannot be seen as deception in a situation where the seller did not actively deceive them.
- Unless intentional malice is proven, such as intentionally hiding or distorting facts to deceive the buyer, it cannot be recognized as deception. The fact that the seller responded sincerely to all requests from the buyer can work against this argument.
3. In case of civil action
- Since it is in a state where normal use is possible, full refund is difficult to recognize.
- If the seller's explanation deficiency is recognized, partial refund may be possible, but the scope may be limited depending on the purchase price.
- Since it was already purchased about 25% cheaper than the market price (Cleancher standard), there is a high possibility that the court will rule that the buyer took the risk of the price and narrow down the refund range or dismiss the application.
4. Is Tubler defective in itself?
- No. There is no absolute superiority or inferiority in all aspects of its function, and it is impossible to judge it as a defect at a point where it is performing its function regardless of perception or demand.
Yes, well... the conclusion is that.
After it was over, I felt relieved, but there were so many people who said things, so I had a cup of coffee and thought about it.
I couldn't help but sympathize with the buyer's feeling of being upset because they spent their own money.
However, since I have other commitments due to school starting tomorrow and I don't want things to get too complicated, I contacted them directly and made a proposal.
I proposed that if I refunded a portion of the amount, they would be able to resell it quickly for the final amount they invested.
The lawyer said that considering the circumstances before and after, even if Kim & Chang came out on their side, it wouldn't exceed 15%, so I just set it at around 15%.
I made the proposal, but I haven't received a reply from the buyer yet.
Whether this is the right answer or not, I think this is the best solution for me. Some people said that I shouldn't be swayed by being pushed through text messages, but I just feel more at ease with this.
I will post again when things are settled in any way.
