Consumers Tran Van Hoang is Vietnamese citizens. Under Vietnamese law, people have the right to do what the law does not prohibit. For ages, there is no law forbidding consumers to question the product, so what right does VinFast force them to remove the clip?
VinFast’s advisers got confused!
There are two reasons:
The first reason: Vietnam also has a law with a clearly understandable name, the Law on the protection of consumers’ interests.
This Code was passed by the 12th National Assembly of Vietnam at its 8th session on November 17, 2010, and took effect on July 1, 2011.
In which, the first noteworthy concept is “goods with defects,” the Code states:
“Defective goods” are “goods that do not ensure safety for consumers, potentially causing damage to consumers’ lives, health, and property, even if such goods are produced in accordance with current technical regulations or standards but defects have not been detected at the time the goods are supplied to consumers, including a) Mass-produced goods have defects arising from technical design.”
Very clear, easy to understand, right, Uncle Vuong?
So, according to the definitions of Vietnamese law, the VinFast car bought by Mr. Hoang, the owner of the GogoTV channel, contains the following defects:
- The wheel pressure sensor is wrong.
- Wipers operate arbitrarily and uncontrollably.
- The turn signal lever does not work properly.
- Wireless charging is not stable.
- There are strange noises in the car door.
- The vehicle makes a strange noise when the brake pedal is pressed.
- There is a vacation voucher given to you when you buy a car, but it cannot be used.
- Car bought for 4 months, traveled 8,000 km, continuously minor errors, went to warranty many times, but the warranty staff made it difficult, after finishing the warranty, the fault has not been fixed.
Here I would like to reverse the problem a bit.
What does the consumer protection law say?
Has Mr. Tran Van Hoang intentionally played badly against VinFast, so he intentionally interfered with the standard car, creating false errors to flaunt and thereby lowering the reputation of VinFast?
This is also the point of VinFast, shown in the content posted on their fan page as below:
Even this suspicion is valid. Then, according to the Law on the protection of the interests of consumers, the carmaker has the right to require the car buyer to prove the defect of the product under the witness of the agency protecting the interests of consumers, press and social media, Arbitration bodies and other third parties with expertise in automotive engineering. Assured with the sanity of these witnesses, all fabricated errors (if any) will be removed with cleanliness who is right and who is wrong? Then, if the carmaker is not for being blamed, both the law and the society will be on its side. If so, Vin’s plan to sell its cars in the US will also be brighter.
The Law on Consumer Rights Protection also clearly stipulates 4 options for consumers and businesses to use when there is a discord in product quality. That is negotiation, mediation, arbitration (thanks to commercial arbitration), and finally to the court. The first three options all emphasize agreement and try to narrow down the cumbersome level of the incident as much as possible.
In fact, in the vast majority of cases, businesses choose the first three options. That is for the sake of it too clear: the faster it is resolved, privately, internally, the fewer people know, the better the reputation of the business will be preserved or the less likely to be worst affected.
However, VinFast did not choose the above peaceful options, but chose the method that shocked the world: forcing customers to remove the clip (ie withdrawing their bad experiences about the product), and said it was sent a complaint to the police and “the police will invite customers to work/summon the customer for interrogation.”
Reason number two: But are there police officers working for VinFast like that?
Reading VinFast’s feedback on the GogoTV incident, every law student in Vietnam must have laughed and fainted. To put it bluntly, this is content that scares children nothing more and less.
It’s all grown up, bring the rules out and play, guys!
Let’s do a simple analysis:
The carmaker (VinFast) concludes that the clip “has untrue content“: According to the law, if you want to conclude that the content is not true, you must prove it, according to the above process, the writer has stated clearly. Over here, no one has checked, but the auto producer has concluded the real thing. So where do the inspection and testing minutes prove that the clip is not true, please present to the consumer? If the submission fails, it is not available.
The carmaker (VinFast) concluded, “Mr. Hoang’s behavior caused confusion for users, causing damage to the reputation and material of the VinFast brand, and at the same time causing confusion for other customers of the company.”
Oh, car maker, this sentence is very revealing! Wanting to denounce someone before the law is not easy. Sufficient evidence must be collected including intentional damage and the consequences that happened (here is the review of GogoTV’s vehicle and the alleged consequences are discrediting, causing damage to VinFast, causing confusion for customers). Next, we must prove the causal relationship between the behavior and the consequences. If it is a crime, then you can use the word “denunciation” but here is the question of the customer, right? Use the wrong word.
And most of all, the customer is reviewing his car, right? Assuming even the breaks or burns the car, VinFast will not have the right to jump anywhere. The car belongs to him, he spends billions to buy it, he has full rights to treat it, VinFast. What rights do you prohibit the customer from sharing his experience with a product? There is no right!
Consumer Tran Van Hoang is a Vietnamese citizen. Under Vietnamese law, people have the right to do what the law does not prohibit. For ages, there is no law forbidding consumers to question the product, so what right does VinFast force them to remove the clip?
The content on the VinFast fan page is a game of ambiguous threatening words: “We have reported to the police. The police received the complaint and had a schedule to summon Mr. Hoang for interrogation.”
Readers please read carefully and understand correctly. “The police have received the denunciation” does not mean “The police confirm that the contents of the denunciation are correct” (ie VinFast is right, Mr. Hoang is wrong). Who is right and who is wrong, please go back to the legal process as mentioned above.
And ” had a schedule to summon Mr. Hoang for interrogation.” What about a working date? The police are the legal protection agency of the country. Citizens come to work with the police to exercise their right to protection before the law is completely normal and civilized. Working with the police to see if the accusation is correct, the accused has violated the criminal law, if so, is it enough to prosecute or just be sanctioned for an administrative violation … etc … that is a normal process. But the implication in VinFast’s words is as if Mr. Hoang is about to be arrested. Too scared to go away!
The business person has a saying in the heart of “Peace will create talent.” Please give it to you, free of charge.
By the way, I would like to give VinFast a tip: you chose the wrong rule. Lawsuits against customers must first use the Law on the Protection of the interests of consumers, at most Civil Law, why do you bring the Criminal Law?
If I were the representative of the police agency mentioned in a VinFast document, I would seriously correct VinFast’s media affairs. The police do not have to work for your cause so do not play loud words here to lower our reputation, damage us and cause people to be confused and confused?
GogoTV’s clip is essentially no different from the countless product review clips that are being made every day about all the products circulating on this earth: fish stocked with maggots, pastries with cockroaches, and advertisements. and different purchases, which “open the box“, “in hand” the famous electronic products (Open the box and On the hand are the names of two very famous electronic product review categories in Vietnam, of Tinhte website. .com)… But, while brands detected by customers are errors, they are quickly checked, then received errors (if any) and compensated customers, only VinFast played games in a separate corner. The legal understanding of the VinFast is too poor, and the bravery to behave is too bad. Losing a woman selling fish stock in the Hanoi market!
A comment from a Facebooker: “Buy a car – receive additionally a calendar” (let customers sit in jail and play games).
By the way, I would like to tell Vingroup’s Chairman Pham Nhat Vuong. I heard your former employee say “Now you don’t need money anymore, if you know that there is a problem with your product, you will dig up the entire VinFast unit to fix it,” I have great respect. I hope you review this case, and peacefully handle everything in accordance with the law, rationally, with love. Self-responsibility first and then seek responsibility from others, right? Vietnamese people, everyone has national pride, if your product is as good as the foreign product in the same segment, they will support it, is it?