The Law Through the Eyes of Businessmen

A recent consumer controversy that spread from the internet to newspapers involves the merchant Watsons. After running advertisements claiming, "I swear Watsons sells daily necessities the cheapest," and guaranteeing a "double the difference refund if found cheaper," Watsons suddenly produced numerous additional conditions when consumers actually came forward to claim their refunds, applying inconsistent standards and handling procedures across different branches. This diverged sharply from the impression of "unconditional refunds" consumers formed from the media. In this situation, the law was once again invoked, first with urgent inquiries: Does this constitute a violation of the law? The Consumers' Foundation responded awkwardly: Although inappropriate, there are no laws to punish it. Consequently, the law became the next target of public condemnation, with the questioning grounded in the rationale: Why has the law not established regulations against such despicable behavior?

To be fair, that is not entirely incorrect; the law indeed does not prescribe fifty strokes of the cane for liars, just as it does not hold that neighbors may spit on someone who fails to be a good neighbor. The problem lies in the fact that things not explicitly prohibited by the law are not necessarily right. Let us not forget that the law is the minimum standard of social norms, not the only standard. Lawmakers have always assumed that social consensus, moral pressure, customs, conscience, and innate moral capacity would share the burden of the law, believing that social order is not maintained by law alone. However, contemporary society does not seem to share this view.

On one hand, whenever established order is challenged, the law is demanded to step in and maintain it; on the other hand, anything not written down in black and white as legal provisions is treated as a non-existent norm. Furthermore, whenever one's own interests are at stake yet the law provides no regulation, the law must be in the wrong. In other words, the law is summoned only when users deem it useful; at all other times, it merely serves as an excuse for the responsible party to shirk accountability. This exact role is a microcosm of today's legal culture.

To speak rigorously, did Watsons break the law? The answer is likely no, because they merely buried the crucial key conditions where consumers could not see them, only to pull them out when some tactless person dared to demand a refund. But please note: it was not entirely unwritten. Were the consumers demanding refunds at fault? Of course not, because they only received the message about refunds for higher prices; who could have known there was a laundry list of caveats? Where does the problem lie? It lies in the fact that our merchants merely want to run advertisements to draw more people in to buy goods, rather than genuinely believing their items are guaranteed to be the cheapest. As for their own commitments—let's be honest—it is nothing more than an advertisement. Who says merchants cannot exaggerate? Who says merchants must be honest? Who says one cannot do things that the law does not explicitly forbid?

This is the price of a capitalist society, and also the impotent side of the law. On one hand, we are powerless to regulate merchants who walk the legal edge; on the other hand, we come to realize once again that the law is not so grand after all. The logic that truly determines how society operates actually stems from the lifestyle attitudes and social power adopted by the majority of people.

※ Published in: Taiwan Daily