The HSE removed the question: the Russians are mistaken that without a check can not return the goods

Russians are often guided by simplified ideas about their rights, which do not always comply with the current legislation. One of the most common was the myth that the absence of a check automatically excludes the possibility of returning the purchased goods. According to the HSE press service, such a request accounted for more than 21% of search demand. In total, the specialists of the Faculty of Law identified 20 persistent legal errors that cause the greatest interest of users.

Experts noted that a cashier's or merchant's check is not the only way to confirm the fact of purchase. If there is no document, the consumer has the right to use other evidence. In this case, the possibility of exchange or return depends on the category of goods and the reason for which the buyer makes the relevant claim.

The second most popular concept was the unconditional “14-day rule”. Indeed, the legislation allows the exchange of non-food products of good quality during this period, but this requires compliance with the conditions established by law.

Another misconception is related to the situation when a shopper accidentally breaks up a product. In itself, this does not mean that the buyer is automatically obliged to compensate for its value. As HSE specialists explained, when considering such situations, the fault of the consumer and the conditions for organizing the trading space matter.

A separate block of myths concerns inheritance. In particular, it is widely believed that the missed six-month period for accepting the inheritance permanently deprives a person of the relevant right. However, the law provides for the possibility of restoring the term through the court. In addition, the inheritance can be accepted with the written consent of other heirs or with proof of its actual acceptance.

The will does not always determine who gets the property. For certain categories of heirs, the law provides for the right to a mandatory share. Also, the idea of the impossibility of canceling the gift agreement is not true: in cases provided for by law, such a procedure is allowed.

Among the 20 most notable legal misconceptions identified by the university were also perceptions of photo and video shooting without consent, an apartment registered only to one spouse, the legal validity of a receipt without a notarial certificate and the return of an erroneously sent money order.

Vadim Vinogradov, Dean of the HSE Faculty of Law, noted that in practice complex legal norms are often reduced to a few simple rules. According to him, because of this simplification, people may not take into account the conditions, terms and requirements for evidence provided by law.