REPORT

ISSUE: KmeetsPH’ refund on ZOOM PTD Con last March 10 and 13, 2022 and other matters.

Last March 15, 2022 I emailed the shop asking if they already processing the refund for the
failed service happened as they also said in their posts and promised that they will refund the
customers. Someone also confirmed that they are already have an ongoing refund. After that day,
March 16, 2022, the shop released a statement that they will cancel the refunding and they will stick to
their policy that the service that we avail is “NON-REFUNDABLE” and went missing in action after that
(no posts or replies to some regarding the issue). Kmeets went active again after almost a month and
claims that they do refunding to some, however, they insist their “our rules our policy” wherein they
impose to refund 60% or 50% only for the amount paid by the customers as they want to have a so
called “processing fee” and no refund to others (as per the shop, those who didn’t get a reply from them
means no refund)

CLAIMS:

According to RA 7394 also known as “Consumer Act of The Philippines” under Protection Against
Deceptive, Unfair and Unconscionable Sales Act or Practices (article 52) that it is deemed unfair and
unconscionable if the seller induced the consumer to enter into was excessively one-sided in favor of
the seller or supplier, thus, the NON-REFUNDABLE or OUR RULES, OUR POLICY is voidable in the
agreement. (Although we already seen the clause on the form we answered, we assume that the non-
refundable clause will only be valid if we choose to back out and also, whether we agree on that form,
the RA 7394 stated that whether it occurs before, during or after the consumer transaction, this law
applies). Thus, having this law, Kmeets should refund all the customers.

Another point is that, from Obligations and Contracts, Article 1167 “If a person obliged to do
something fails to do it, the same shall be executed at his cost”. And the customers have the right to: (1)
to have the obligation performed himself, or by another, at the obligor’s expense (2) to recover
damages. It is clear that the shop fails to do the service which is to have a streaming event in real time
and from that, kmeets should refund the amount paid by the customers since there is no other way to
execute the said service because it is specific thing in nature. (Though kmeets may imposed
compensation or remedy on the said event like having another streaming event for the future concerts,
as replacement to the previous one – they do have an online streaming event just recent but did not
offer this to the customers). From this, I believe that that it is unjust for having a processing fee or not
refunding in full the amount paid by the customers. It is only natural that businesses incur losses in any
way but they shouldn’t charge the clients the expenses that they incur specially if they receive nothing
or the stipulated service is not fulfilled.
Counters:

(1) If the shop insists that we agreed in their term and condition when we enter the contract or
agreement for them to impose their Non-Refundable Clause – Article 1306: The contracting
parties may establish such stipulations, clauses terms and conditions as may deem
convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or
public policy. Since it is contrary to RA 7394, thus, aside from stated above, the non-
fundable clause is invalid.

(2) If the shop insists that the reason of failure of the service is due to unforeseen
circumstances as they didn’t want that to happen or didn’t cause it, and there is no liability
in case of fortuitous event - The person who reported their streaming account that cause
the failure of the service cannot be considered as fortuitous event or an unforeseen event
because, there’s people mass reporting illegal streaming sites and maybe Kmeets lacks
security on the day of the event or poorly organized the event as they accommodate lots of
clients and did not filter properly the customers who enter zoom meeting.

Conclusion

Kmeets as they failed to fulfill the service, I believe, they should refund the amount in full, all
persons who avails the service regardless of their reasons (those who said their sentiments or give
negative feedbacks due to the issue, even those who said harsh words to them) except those who don’t
want to be refunded.