Chiang Mai court denies rice-cooker refund as disclosure of missing bowl remains unproven

The court hearing a consumer claim in Chiang Mai denied Nalin Suksai’s request for a THB 1,290 refund in exchange for returning a discounted display rice cooker. It ordered neither party to pay the other and did not order the cooker’s return.

The dispute turned on whether buying a display item meant knowingly buying a cooker without the inner bowl needed to cook. Nalin said the missing bowl had not been disclosed; seller Preecha Wattanakul said he had explained before purchase that a separate bowl was needed. The court found that the available evidence did not resolve that conflict.

A saved LINE exchange from the evening of purchase showed that Nalin promptly complained about the missing bowl and sought a refund. Preecha’s recorded response referred to the discount and the receipt’s no-returns wording, but did not mention an earlier warning.

The court gave the exchange moderate weight. It was a contemporaneous written record, but its authenticity was not independently established beyond its presentation, and it did not record the conversation before payment. Its repeated presentation during the hearing did not amount to independent corroboration.

The receipt likewise did not identify the missing bowl. That supported Nalin’s position about the written terms, but did not establish that Preecha had made no verbal disclosure. The seller’s silence about a warning in his later message was relevant, not conclusive.

The decisive point was who had to prove the claim. Preecha’s assertion of a warning was unsupported by a contemporaneous record or specific details, and the court did not accept it as proven. Nevertheless, Nalin had to establish the factual basis for a refund. The evidence made Nalin’s account plausible without proving what had been said before purchase.

The court considered a refund upon return a practical arrangement, but that did not establish entitlement. Nor did the record establish a specific promise that the cooker included an inner bowl or that its absence had been concealed.

Nalin argued that accepting a discounted display cooker was different from accepting one without an essential part. The buyer relied on the receipt’s omission and the prompt complaint, while acknowledging that the LINE exchange could not prove the pre-sale conversation and that no separate pre-purchase record was available.

Preecha maintained that Nalin had been told a separate bowl was needed. He also relied on the receipt’s display-item and no-returns terms and viewed the complaint as a change of mind.

Nalin bought the discounted display rice cooker at Preecha’s Chiang Mai shop for THB 1,290. The receipt recorded the purchase price and the no-returns term, but not the missing bowl.

The decision leaves the disputed warning unresolved. It does not establish that Preecha disclosed the missing part, or that a no-returns term automatically defeats a refund claim. The denial rests on the limits of the evidence about this sale.