送家具风波：到底谁占理？

当消费者和零售商发生纠纷时，你可能会想当然地认为法律会站在消费者一边，企业宰了消费者。虽然在某些情况下，一些不良企业行为的确会令消费者深受其害，但在其他情况下陷入纠纷的消费者可能也需要承担一定的责任。然而在很多时候，狂怒和丧失理智却会让人更难确定引发争端的真正元凶。

When dispute between a consumer and retailer arises, you may automatically assume that law is on your side and that the business is ripping off consumers. While in some cases, unscrupulous business practices may leave consumers facing vulnerable circumstances, in other cases, consumers may bear some of the responsibilities in the dispute. But quite often, anger and rage makes it more difficult to identify the real culprit that has caused the friction.


黄先生曾在2014年9月向《大中报》投诉一名家具店主，他在这家店购买了三件套沙发，其中包括一张扶手椅、一张双人沙发和一张长沙发。但是在家具店送货上门时，却因为黄先生所住的大楼货梯停运，从而未能将这套沙发送至他家中。

Mr. Wang made a complaint with Chinese News against a furniture store owner. In September 2014, Wang bought 3 pieces of sofa – an arm chair, a love seat and a couch. But when the furniture was delivered to his building, the service elevator in the building wasn’t working, so the couch wasn’t able to reach his unit.


于是，这套沙发又被送回家具店的仓库，以等待黄先生所住大楼的货梯恢复运行。但是据黄先生称，当时他居住的大楼因为断电断水而不适宜居住。由于居民都已经被疏散，因此这套沙发根本送不上门。

The couch was then moved back to the furniture’s warehouse, pending the elevator to be fixed. But according to Wang, his building then lost power and water supply and had become uninhabitable. As residents were evacuated, couch delivery was out of the question.


当今年6月一切都恢复正常并且货梯也修好后，黄先生想起了那套沙发，于是联系家具店商讨送货问题。但是据黄先生称，家具店主接到他的电话后愤怒地告诉他沙发已经没有了，然后就挂断了电话。在接下来的两个月里，店主一直拒绝接听黄先生的电话。

When things were back to normal and the elevator was fixed in June, Wang thought about the couch and contacted the furniture store to discuss delivery. But Wang says that his phone call was met with anger from the store owner, who told him that the couch was gone and then shortly hung up on him. The owner had refused to take his phone calls for two months.


当黄先生再次联系上这名店主时，对方提出了一个令他难以置信和愤怒不已的提议：如果黄先生急需这套沙发，必须花$350元钱购买一套二手货。

When Wang talked to the owner again, he was offered a new deal that sent Wang into disbelief and anger – If Wang desperately needed the couch, he would have to buy a used one at $350.


黄先生称：“太过分了！同一件家具，我为什么要买两次？”

“It is ridiculous!” says Wang.” Why do I have to double-pay for the same piece of furniture?”


要求消费者双倍付款的确看似荒唐，商家也似涉嫌不良商业行为。但如果相信黄先生完全占理，错全在家具店主可能只会加剧双方的紧张关系。

Seeking double payments from consumer seems ridiculous and may automatically lead to the allegation of unscrupulous business practice. But the belief that Wang was justified in his rage against the store owner may only intensify the tension between the two sides.

据这名店主称，黄先生是一个非常不负责任的顾客，其草率行为导致家具店产生包括保管和运输费用等额外费用。
According to the store owner, Wang was such an irresponsible customer whose recklessness has incurred extra costs to his furniture business – including storage and delivery costs.


家具店主称：“大半年啊！整整大半年时间，他消失得无影无踪……他不仅没主动联系我们对沙发的事做出安排，还多次拒绝接听我们向他征求解决方案的电话。由于这么长时间一直联系不上他，我们别无选择只能将家具拆封！”

“Half a year! For entirely half a year, he had disappeared without a trace… Not only did he fail to contact us to arrange the storage of the couch, he also refused to take our repeated phone calls seeking a solution from him.  Unable to reach him for such a long time, we had no choice but to destroy the furniture!”


虽然消费者有权期得到一个公平的市场环境，但他们也有责任公平行事并对及时处理所出现的问题，以避免或减少任何潜在损失或费用。

While consumers have rights to expect that the marketplace is fair, they also have responsibilities to be fair and deal with problems quickly to avoid or mitigate any potential damages or costs.


一般来说，如果是因顾客原因导致送货不成功，消费者有责任重新安排送货或提出解决方案。尽管黄先生所住大楼的电梯已经坏了很长时间，但其作为消费者应该采取一定措施。看到黄先生漠然处之的家具店主则有权按其意愿处理这些家具。

As a rule of thumb, should a customer cause an unsuccessful delivery, it is the customers’ responsibility to make arrangements or to provide solutions.  Despite the prolonged period that the building elevator was out of order, Wang as a customer should take action. Failing to do so would entitle the store owner to dispose the furniture as he wishes.


如果黄早点采取行动，他可能挽救了这件沙发之不测命运。而且，如果黄能早点认识到自己的错误，就可以避免此后遇到更多麻烦。但黄先生拒不认错的态度却让家具店主更感觉理直气壮：

Had Huang taken steps to address the problem, he would have saved this piece of furniture. Moreover, Huang would save more troubles down the road if he could recognize his mistakes. But Wang’s denial has left the store owner feeling more justified:


“如果他想上法庭打官司，那悉听尊便!法庭怎么判我就怎么赔！”

“If he wants to sue us in court, he has the choice of doing so! I am willing to pay any judgment that the court may issue against me!”


家具店主在说这句时语带讽刺。毋庸置疑，这种官司可能只会给不理智的消费者造成更多的经济和感情损害。

The store owner said this with a sarcastic tone. Needless to say such a legal battle could only hurt an unreasonable consumer more deeply, both financially and emotionally.