AI summary
Summary of article:
A dispute broke out between a Shandong freezer trader and a Shanghai buyer over the issue of whether the product met standards, was not returned after a refund and whether it was still in use. The two sides disagreed, and the case has not yet been heard in court.
Mr. Qin is a freezer trader in Shandonge-commerce Two freezers sold on the platform were not returned after the buyer applied for a refund of 4,070 yuan (RMB, similar below, about US$611). After investigating the matter, Mr. Qin found that the freezer at a bun shop in Shanghai was still in use. The buyer, Mr Li (surname Hua), said the freezer did not reach the temperature as promised and was still not up to standard after two repairs. On October 29, Mr. Li said he had submitted case filing materials to the People’s Court of Yangpu District of Shanghai, suing the merchant and the platform, demanding the return of another three indemnities, the cessation of infringement and a mental damage claim of 10,000 yuan, a total of 22,210 yuan. Mr. Qin expressed his willingness to resolve the matter through legal means.
Red Star News reported that Mr. Li purchased three freezers for a chain bun shop in Shanghai in May 2026, worth a total of about 5,000 yuan. Before purchasing, he asked customer service whether it could reach minus 26 degrees Celsius, and the other party replied that it could. However, after the freezer arrived on May 12, Mr. Li reported in June that the cooling effect was not good, saying that the actual temperature was only minus 13 degrees Celsius, and asked for an exchange or refund.
The merchant arranged for repairs twice, but the two parties were still in dispute over whether the product was up to standards. The merchant said that the freezer is a variable frequency model, and the temperature will change with the operation time, and said that the empty box can reach minus 26 degrees Celsius; Mr. Li said that the freezer cannot meet the freezing needs of the store, which will affect product storage and operation.
In July, Mr. Lee again applied for a refund on the grounds that the product did not match the product description even after repair. After the platform’s intervention, on August 3, it supported advance refunds on the grounds that the goods had quality problems, and recommended that merchants negotiate with buyers to handle the goods. On August 6, the merchant asked if two freezers could be treated as buy one, get one free, and said the cost of return shipping would be too high. Mr. Lee replied that the freezer was destroyed.
Mr. Qin later drove from Shandong to Shanghai and found that two freezers were still being used in the Baoji shop. He called the police and asked them to take him back. However, the police did not register a case and recommended that the matter be resolved through civil litigation.
Mr. Li explained that when he made the refund, he was not responsible for the store’s affairs. He told the store manager he could dispose of the freezer himself. He later learned that the freezer had broken down, but he did not witness the process of handling it with his own eyes. At present the concerned shop has been closed.
Mr Lee sued this time, arguing that the merchant knew the freezer could not reach minus 26 degrees Celsius, but still used it as a selling point for the product, suspecting false advertising. He also reported that the company where the businessman worked was fined 5,000 yuan on August 21 for failing to provide evidence of promoting “40% energy savings.”
Mr Kin said he had refunded all the payments, questioned the basis of the buyer’s suit and stressed that the empty freezer box could reach temperatures as low as minus 26 degrees Celsius. Both parties currently hold their own views, and subsequent disputes have yet to be heard by the court.
Summary FAQ
-
The main controversy is whether the freezer can reach minus 26 degrees Celsius, as claimed by the merchant, and whether the buyer did not return the product after getting the money back, but was found to be still using the device in the store. Therefore both sides accused each other.
-
The buyer claimed that the freezer’s actual measurement was only minus 13 degrees Celsius, which was unable to meet the store’s freezing requirements, and was not up to standard even after two repairs. Therefore, they demanded refund of money, stoppage of violation and compensation for mental harm.
-
The merchant first arranged for repairs, and then claimed that the empty container could reach minus 26 degrees Celsius. After returning the money, he went to Shanghai to find out the whereabouts of the equipment. He found that the freezer was still in use, so he called the police and said he would pursue legal remedies.
