A Piece Of Clothing Two People "Grab", Who Should Be Returned To?

Buying clothes is a pleasure, but recently, Ms. Gao bought a fire for buying clothes.

"It's a bit too much for fifteen dollars to sell a piece of clothing to two people!" Gao lady looked very angry when she reached the hotline.

A dress sells two people.

It turned out that Ms. Gao chose a dress at a clothing store in the County Commercial Plaza that day, and after bargaining with her boss, she negotiated the price of 85 yuan.

"After talking about the price, I will change the new clothes, and I want to wait until I change my clothes and then pay the money, so I can walk directly in my new clothes."

What Mrs. Gao did not expect was that when she changed her clothes, another customer came into the shop. "I heard what they meant from the quiet conversation between the customer and the boss."

It turned out that the customer saw the dress a few days ago and basically talked about 100 yuan.

However, because it has not yet been fully decided, it has not been bought at last.

To her great indignation, the shopkeeper asked the customer to pay the money quickly. "I heard it all at that time. The shopkeeper told the customer secretly that I hadn't paid yet, and said that whoever paid first would get the first."

The customer paid 100 yuan, and the shopkeeper immediately asked Miss Gao to take off her clothes and say that someone else had already bought it.

"I was very angry at that time, and obviously had already talked about it. I had to wear it away, and I didn't pay for it. She sold it to someone else."

Ms. Gao said, "the boss must ask me to take it off, saying that if you want to buy it, you can pay 100 yuan.

I refuse to, so I have been deadlocked for more than an hour. The customer who came there seems to be very boring.

Ms. Gao said that although she finally bought that dress, she always felt bad.

Who should be dressed in this dress? Is it the customer who pays the money first or the high lady who pays first?

The reporter interviewed the relevant person in charge of the county Consumer Protection Committee on the matter. The official told reporters that although Mrs. Gao had negotiated the price, he had not paid the bill, which meant that the paction had not yet been completed.

Although she agreed with the shopkeeper, the agreement can only be regarded as an oral agreement, which can only represent a purchase intention, but the real sale relationship is mainly based on actual payment or written agreement.

From the point of view of really buying and selling relations, the customer who had come back paid the money first. If there was a real dispute, the dress should belong to the customer who arrived later, not Miss Gao.

It is not only difficult for Ms. Gao to understand the possible verdict of this matter and the dispute, but most of the people in the random survey conducted by reporters later said it was difficult to understand.

The relevant person in charge of the county consumer protection committee told reporters that it is very difficult for the public to understand it, because most of the citizens are looking at this matter with a traditional "customary" vision. But in fact, if disputes really arise, it is not effective to reach the purchase intention only. The first payment of the customer after that is undoubtedly the "best evidence" for the best deal.

The official said that in the whole case, the owner of the store played a very subtle role, although the market economy is now, the state also encourages open selling.

But if the owner of the store is willing to act as a "peace maker" in the course of the whole event, rather than paying 15 yuan for the customers to pay first, then things will not be so complicated.