Clip "bomb goods" 8 cases, the shop owner went online to "peek" with insulting words

In online shopping, being bombed by customers is inevitable. Recently, the online world has had the opportunity to gather when sniffing the "bomb" drama of 8 phone cases, in which neither the buyer nor the seller "fits".

The source of the incident stemmed from PT - the g.irl in a whim had ordered 13 cases, the goods arrived before 8 so the shop owner delivered first. After that, PT thought again about it, so he intended to bomb the goods, the seller had to come to the house, but PT's mother refused to accept it, a jubilant "explosion" quarrel also came from here.

In the clip the seller posted online, PT's mother did not agree to let her daughter buy a phone case, and loudly scolded PT: What do you want now? If you decide to buy a phone case, I will kick you out of the house! Shipper explained to PT's mother that she had ordered online, and had to pay for delivery when she arrived. PT's mother made the condition that: Now she sells on credit, when she has m.oney to pay, she can. The video is stopped at the moment the mother refuses to accept the goods, accompanied by the affirmation: Even 1 thousand won't let me take the phone case!

According to what the shop owner replied to comments with netizens, PT has ordered up to 13 cases, 8 pieces should be sent first. The shop owner said that PT initially intended to bomb the goods, but when contacted, he agreed to accept it. When the shipper came to deliver, the above incident happened.

However, a few netizens discovered another unexpected "twist" when they found out on the shop owner's Instagram. The g.irl selling this case is also not "medium size" when she publicly posted a story of insulting PT with a lot of vulgar words, insulting PT's parents because she did not agree to receive the goods. At the same time, take a screenshot of the TikTok clip going viral on the internet with the caption: "Wait, sister".

Of course, netizens were also not shy, but enthusiastically left comments about this case:

-There's no one "fit" in this story...

- At first, the customer was wrong, put it to the mouth, then the mother refused to accept it, and finally the shop owner "insulted" a series of things and then posted it on TikTok?

- Anyone who is bombarded is angry, but I am afraid of insulting shops and willing to put customers online with this attitude.

- After reading this drama, I don't know whose side I should take because I think everyone is wrong.

It can be said that this drama would not have happened if PT had not ordered for "sang", or at least had to ask his mother's permission first so as not to "lose face" in front of the shipper. On the sales side, this is the job of making hundreds of them, so it's not okay to post "this" every time you see a customer online with disparaging comments like this.

Not long ago, in order to strengthen social distancing measures, ensure food and food sources for people during the time of social distancing, local authorities in Ho Chi Minh City organized a trip to the market. help people. This is a necessary and meaningful measure in the current period, however, the actual implementation process still faces some difficulties, most recently the situation in a ward in Tan Phu district (HCMC). ) was "bombed" by 30 orders.

From this case, the legal issue raised is whether the act of "bombing goods" violates the law and is handled or not?

Firstly, the current law does not have any terms or regulations on "bombing". However, it can be understood that this is the agreement between the seller and the purchaser by themselves or through a third party (in this case, a local representative) to successfully establish the purchase. But when performing the delivery, receipt and payment, the ordering party did not perform that transaction (deliberately not answering the phone, or refusing to receive the goods).

Secondly, based on the provisions of Articles 116, 119, Article 398 of the Civil Code 2015, in this case, the order delivery transaction is considered as the fact that the parties have entered into a contract of sale and purchase of goods. Accordingly, when the contract is established, each party has rights and obligations related to the delivery of the order, specifically to the buyer, to perform the obligation to receive goods and pay for the purchase. Failure to do so will violate the agreement of the two parties and the provisions of civil law.

The liability to bear is the responsibility to pay compensation for damage caused by the breach of obligations as prescribed in Article 360 and Article 419 of the Civil Code 2015. However, this only happens in the case of the person being hit by a cargo bomb. initiate a lawsuit and request the court to settle. In other words, if the person affected by the aviation bomb asks the competent authority to settle it, the liability of the person who has been hit by an aviation bomb is not set out.

In addition, according to the current law, documents guiding the handling and prosecution of legal liabilities for violations of regulations related to the prevention and control of the Covid-19 epidemic have not yet had any sanctions. any administrative handling for the person who bombed the goods. On the other hand, because this is only a civil transaction, there is no basis for criminal liability.

When the law does not have administrative or criminal sanctions, the resolution of such issues only stops at the perspective of civil law. This is only done according to the wishes of the subject of the bomb, especially in the current context, when the epidemic is extremely complicated, the claim for civil compensation almost does not occur, so there is no the meaning of correcting the consciousness and attitudes of a part of the people.

For the model of going to the market to help people, is it possible to strengthen the order review, reconfirm with the specific purchaser whether to buy or not? In case of non-receipt of goods, there must be a valid reason. It is difficult to accept the "commodity bomb" during the time of the epidemic, when traveling is difficult, so each citizen needs to be aware of his or her job to avoid affecting the general work.

The owner of the ark was bombed: The p.erpetrator was spared but had to bow to the organization 100 prostrations, suspected of instigation Keng07:34:28 21/08/2023In recent days, social media has been abuzz with the fact that a chest farm owner in Ca Mau was bombed. When the p.erpetrator came to apologize, the owner of the ark did not make it difficult, only asked to burn incense to bow to the ancestor. He questioned someone behind the instigation.