The practical aspect of returning goods in Israel, 2014:
Between the law and the practical aspect, there is nothing but a deep, dark divide. We are far from the day when a customer is able to return goods without having to visit a courtroom or to fight for his rights.
There are signs of change, and it is clear we can already see the light at the end of the tunnel — but it is still a long tunnel.
The case:
Mr. Salam Lulo (the plaintiff) bought some cloth for his daughter, at a cost of 514 shekels. The following day, he went back to the store and requested to return the fabric and cancel the purchase. The goods were still in perfect condition, with the tags on them.
After the salesperson refused to receive the goods, the plaintiff turned to store owner Mr. Sami Najar (the defendant) to take back the cloth and return the money — as the law permits him to do. The defendant refused to accept the goods and, of course, declined to return the money paid for them.
In November 2011, the plaintiff presented his lawsuit against the defendant for more than 22,500 shekels in the Nazareth Court (case #14639-06-11). On July 7, 2014 — after both sides had presented their case in writing and had been questioned in court – the Honorable Judge Mr. Riad Kudsi delivered his verdict.
The decision:
The pillar of the decision, in my opinion, is the fact that there was no visible sign whatsoever in the store regarding a “return policy.” Therefore, the judge presented his verdict using the tools given by law, without any restriction.
When there are no clearly visible “return policy” signs in a store, the law is to be respected AS IS, without any interpretation or restrictions; this means that the goods can be returned according to the current unclear laws and regulations.
The Honorable Judge pointed out the following:
“This is the place to clarify that, in accordance with the provisions of the law and the regulations — even if the defendant believes otherwise — there is no relevance as to why the consumer asked to cancel a deal, as long as there are conditions in place that allow him to do so, e.g., asking to cancel the transaction within the period stipulated; and returning the goods to the seller/dealer in perfect, unused condition.”
The judge decided in favor of the plaintiff: He was to receive 5,000 shekels in compensation.
A word of wisdom:
Reading the court case in full, it is clear that, in spite of all the years it took for the legal system to come to a decision, in the end it was worth it – not because of the money, but mainly because of the principle.
Each one of us could find ourselves in the same situation in the near future. The more these cases go to court, and the more they are published, the more the people we buy from will think twice before they refuse to obey what the law expects of them.
