The product did not meet the declared specifications, and the seller refused to refund: how the court protected the buyer's rights

Online shopping simplifies the purchase of goods but does not exempt sellers from the obligation to comply with consumer protection laws. If the purchased product does not meet the declared specifications or the buyer decides to exercise the right to return, the seller is obliged to act in accordance with the law.

The Pereiaslav City District Court of Kyiv region considered a case on the protection of the rights of a consumer who purchased a cordless mini saw and a cordless angle grinder through an online store but found the goods did not meet the declared specifications after receipt. The court examined the legality of the seller's refusal to accept the return of the goods and refund the paid money, as well as the grounds for compensation for moral damages.

Case circumstances

The plaintiff purchased a cordless angle grinder and a cordless mini saw from an individual entrepreneur through the website yu.com.ua for a total of 1848 UAH. The goods were delivered via "Ukrposhta" with cash on delivery, after which the buyer paid the seller's account.

After receiving and inspecting the goods, the buyer concluded that they did not correspond to the characteristics stated on the seller's website. In particular, the cordless angle grinder stopped working approximately one minute after being turned on even without load, and its power and number of revolutions did not match the declared specifications. Additionally, the goods did not include a warranty card, instructions in Ukrainian, or information about service maintenance in Ukraine.

The day after receiving the goods, the buyer informed the seller of the intention to return the products and arranged their shipment back via "Ukrposhta." He set the condition for receiving the package as the refund of the paid 1848 UAH. In correspondence via Viber, the seller demanded to cancel the cash on delivery and send the goods without a guarantee of money return, promising only to consider the possibility of refund within 14 days after receiving the goods.

The buyer refused such conditions, considering them risky and referring to numerous negative reviews from other consumers about the seller's activities. As a result, the seller did not receive the goods, and the package was returned to the buyer as undelivered. After that, the consumer went to court demanding the seller be obliged to accept the goods, refund the paid money, compensate delivery costs, and compensate moral damages.

Court's position

The court established that legal relations arose between the parties from a distance sales contract concluded via the Internet. During the case, the fact of purchase, payment, subsequent return to the seller, and the seller's refusal to accept the goods under the buyer's conditions were confirmed.

The court noted that the consumer exercised the right to withdraw from the contract and return the goods within the 14-day period provided by law. Sending the goods back to the seller and demanding a refund indicated the termination of the distance sales contract. The court also emphasized that consumer protection legislation explicitly grants the consumer the right not to return the goods before receiving a refund.

According to the court, the seller's demand to return the goods without simultaneous refund contradicted the Law of Ukraine "On Consumer Protection." The court stressed that the defendant complicated the refund procedure by imposing additional conditions not provided by law and restricting consumer rights. Such conditions were declared null and void as they contradict consumer protection legislation.

In evaluating the evidence, the court considered fiscal receipts from "Ukrposhta," waybills, package descriptions, correspondence via Viber, and directly inspected the purchased goods. The court concluded that the buyer's actions regarding the return were proper and complied with legal requirements. At the same time, the seller failed to prove the legality of the refusal to accept the goods and refund the money.

The court also considered the claim for moral damages. It noted that violation of consumer rights may be grounds for compensation for moral damages, especially in cases of selling goods that do not meet declared specifications and unjustified refusal to refund after contract termination. The court concluded that the seller's unlawful actions, the need for prolonged protection of rights, and court proceedings negatively affected the plaintiff's psychological state and caused moral suffering. However, the claimed amount of compensation was deemed excessive.

As a result of case No. 373/2488/25, the court partially satisfied the claim. The court obliged the individual entrepreneur to accept the cordless mini saw and cordless angle grinder from the buyer at their own expense, ordered the refund of 1848 UAH for the goods and 148 UAH for delivery and shipping costs to the plaintiff. Additionally, the court awarded 2500 UAH for moral damages and 1331.20 UAH court fees in favor of the state.

The plaintiff may file an appeal against the court decision to the Kyiv Court of Appeal.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.