Given Hong Kong’s typically limited living space, apart from buying ready-made furniture in-store, many consumers opt for custom-made pieces to make the most of every inch of their homes. In recent years, in response to growing consumer preference for online shopping, many furniture traders have introduced online stores to provide greater convenience and variety for customers to create their ideal home sweet home. However, the Consumer Council oftentimes receives complaints regarding furniture purchases. Lodged cases ranged from inconsistencies between the online listing and the actual product; quality discrepancies between the displayed product and the delivered item; to a trader citing various disclaimers to evade responsibility for the incorrect dimensions of its custom-made pieces.
The Council reminds the furniture industry that details such as the brand, dimensions and design are essential information to consumers and must be clearly and accurately stated. Traders should not rely on the “images are for reference only” disclaimer to justify inconsistencies. Since display models serve as a key reference for consumers, traders should ensure that the delivered products align with the showcased quality. While minor variations in product specifications and measurements can occur during the production process, relying on tolerance ranges or disclaimers to shirk responsibility can lead to the impression of lacking accountability, undermining the industry’s development in the long term. The Council urges the industry to apply these disclaimers fairly when resolving consumer disputes, and to adhere to stringent quality control throughout production to establish a reputable brand image.
Case 1: Furniture Purchase Online Not as Described
Return Handling and Repackaging Charges Deducted from Refund
The complainant purchased a Scandinavian-style curved wooden desk for $2,900 from Online Store A. The desk was advertised on the store’s English-only website as featuring mortise-and-tenon drawer boxes and having a depth of 58cm. However, upon delivery, the packaging was printed with Simplified Chinese text while the brand name did not match the product descriptions shown online. After assembly, the desk measured only 55cm in depth, exceeding the 1cm tolerance stated on the website, and the drawer construction used screws instead of the advertised mortise-and-tenon joints. Dissatisfied with the discrepancies, the complainant requested a return and full refund but was denied by Online Store A. This led him to lodge a complaint with the Council.
In its subsequent response, Online Store A emphasised that its website had clearly stated “images are for reference only” and noted that minor design variations could occur. However, it did not address the discrepancy between the brand name on the packaging and that shown online. While acknowledging the complainant’s dissatisfaction, it agreed to offer a refund, but insisted on deducting $500 for return handling and an additional 20% of the retail price for repackaging in accordance with its refund and exchange policy. This amounted to about $1,080, which was nearly 40% of the price. As no agreement was reached, the complainant expressed an intention to seek further legal advice before deciding on the next steps.
Case 2: Leather Sofa Quality Inferior to Display Model
Trader Agreed to Exchange Item
After testing a half-leather 2-seater sofa at Trader B’s store, the complainant was pleased with its design, smooth leather and overall comfort, and proceeded to purchase it for around $4,850. However, upon receiving the sofa and sitting on it for 3 hours, she concluded that it felt different from the display model she had tested. On closer inspection, the seat and backrest foam were noticeably less soft, and the leather grain was rather rough with multiple visible scars, markedly inferior in quality compared to the in-store display model. The complainant reported the issue to Trader B, who denied any discrepancies in the leather quality. Unconvinced, the complainant turned to the Council for assistance.
Trader B informed the Council that it had sent a technician to the complainant’s home for an on-site inspection, confirming that the components of the sofa, including the wooden frame and springs, met production standards. It also arranged for the complainant to retest the display model at its store. Since the complainant maintained that the display model was of better quality, Trader B eventually agreed to exchange it for the delivered sofa, thereby resolving the case.
Case 3: Trader Cited Tolerance Range for Custom-made Sofa Not Matching Ordered Dimensions
The complainant ordered a custom-made 3-seater leather sofa with chaise from Trader C for $24,300. He specifically requested a total length of 120 inches, with each seat measuring 26 inches wide and the chaise 30 inches wide, and ensured these specifications were stated on the invoice. Regrettably, the sofa he received did not meet the specified requirements, as each seat measured only 24 inches wide and the chaise 31 inches. As a result, he requested Trader C to remake the sofa. In their subsequent communication, Trader C explained that the excess foam inside the sofa had caused it to “plump up” and appear narrower, and stated that with continued use, the foam would gradually compress, and the sofa would widen to the intended dimensions. For this reason, it refused to remake the sofa, prompting the dissatisfied complainant to file a complaint with the Council.
In its reply to the Council, Trader C stated that the total sofa length of 120 inches did match the order, and that a 2-inch tolerance range was clearly stated on the invoice. It added that the complainant had been well informed during the sales process that minor dimensional variations were to be expected with handmade furniture, and therefore refused any exchange or remake requests. Suspecting this to be a possible violation of the Trade Descriptions Ordinance, the complainant considered seeking assistance from the Customs and Excise Department. The Council also advised him to obtain legal advice before deciding on any further actions for redress.
Consumers are advised to pay heed to the following when purchasing ready-made or custom-made furniture:
- While online shopping offers convenience, be mindful of disclaimers like “images are for reference only”, as photos may not accurately reflect the actual product due to variations in setting, angle or lighting. If possible, visit the store to inspect and test the furniture in person for a more accurate evaluation before purchase. Take photos of the display model to use as reference upon product delivery. When placing a custom order, include detailed descriptions of the quality aspects on the invoice;
- Carefully read the terms and conditions for after-sales service and warranty before purchase. Be aware of any conditions that may affect refund or exchange guarantees, if any, such as restrictions on discounted items, the requirement to retain original packaging, and specific return deadlines, etc.;
- Upon noticing any quality issues or discrepancies from the product descriptions or custom order specifications after delivery, such as varying dimensions, promptly contact the trader to follow up. Keep photo records as well as all receipts and transaction records to serve as evidence;
- In addition to ensuring sufficient space to place the furniture, it is important to consider whether there is adequate space for assembly. Traders may impose delivery surcharges for extra walking distance or stairs, such as when furniture needs to be carried via stairwells due to oversized pieces not fitting in elevators, or when no elevators are available in the building, and also when the delivery address is considered a remote location, or if it is far from vehicle drop-off points. Therefore, consumers should confirm the furniture measurements, delivery logistics, assembly space requirements, and potential surcharges in advance to avoid unexpected costs.
Download the article (Chinese only): https://ccchoice.org/583-furniture
Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE.