"Complete 36 care sessions to receive a refund of 5,980 yuan deposit." Consumers who fulfilled the required number of sessions and applied for a refund were refused by the merchant, but the court ruled in their favor!

Source: Taiwan Strait Network

Taiwan Strait Network, March 27 (Strait Herald reporter Chen Jie, intern reporter Zhang Yanfeng, correspondent Hu Fa) Prepaid 5,980 yuan as a deposit, committed to complete 36 treatments over more than a year, fully expecting to get a full refund, but unexpectedly the business turned its back. Recently, the Huli District Court concluded this service contract dispute case and ruled that the beauty brand must refund the consumer Ms. Lai the deposit of 5,980 yuan.

In May 2024, Ms. Lai participated in a promotional event titled “Finding a Goddess Spokesperson” at the Jimei store of Xiamen Company A’s skin management center. The event stipulated: Prepay a deposit of 5,980 yuan, and after completing 36 designated treatments, a full refund would be provided.

On the day of signing, Ms. Lai made the payment via QR code, with the payee showing as Xiamen Company B Health Management Co., Ltd. Two days later, store staff suggested she upgrade to the “Peptide Repair Annual Card,” and Ms. Lai paid an additional 2,820 yuan, with the other party verbally promising “a full refund after completion.”

For over a year, Ms. Lai consistently went to the store for treatments as agreed. After the original signed store closed, she followed the store’s arrangements and transferred to another store to continue fulfilling the contract. The treatment record showed she completed a total of 39 treatments, far exceeding the agreed number.

After completing all treatments in July 2025, Ms. Lai applied for a refund of her deposit as agreed, but the business began to shift responsibility, even refusing to refund on the grounds that “the signing entity is a franchise store, unrelated to the brand.” After multiple unsuccessful negotiations, Ms. Lai sued both the brand A and the actual payee Company B in court.

During the trial, Company A argued that the confirmation document related to the event did not bear the company’s official seal, asserting it was merely a franchising company, and that each franchise store operated independently, thus it should not bear refund responsibility. Company B failed to appear in court without valid reason after being summoned by the court, nor did it submit a defense opinion.

The court established that Company A holds 51% of Company B’s shares and is its controlling shareholder. The store sign and products used were all branded by Company A, and as an ordinary consumer, Ms. Lai had no way of knowing the internal franchise and operational relationship between the store and the brand.

The court determined that the actions of the franchise store constituted apparent agency, and Ms. Lai had ample reason to believe she was transacting with the brand A, thus establishing a valid and effective service contract relationship. Ms. Lai had completed 36 treatments as per the contract, meeting the conditions for a refund, and Company A should return the deposit of 5,980 yuan as agreed.

Regarding Ms. Lai’s claim for the refund of the 2,820 yuan upgrade fee, the court pointed out that this amount was not included in the original contractually agreed deposit, and Ms. Lai failed to provide evidence to demonstrate that this amount was also subject to a full refund agreement; thus, this claim was not supported.

Judge’s Remarks

Three Key Points for Prepaid Consumer Rights Protection

The judge reminded consumers in prepaid consumption to pay attention to three points: First, sign a written contract that clearly stipulates refund conditions, performance details, and breach of contract responsibilities; do not blindly trust verbal promises from businesses; Second, keep evidence properly, retaining payment receipts, performance records, communication screenshots, and other relevant materials throughout the process to lay a solid foundation for subsequent rights protection; Third, recognize the transaction entity; even if the contract is not stamped with the brand’s official seal, if the store sign, product label, service arrangements, etc., are sufficient to create reasonable trust in the brand, the brand must still bear corresponding legal responsibilities.

【Taiwan Strait Network Reporting Channel】

Email: taihainet@163.com

Reporting, publishing, rights protection, and content cooperation hotline

Source: Taiwan Strait Network