On February 11, gold prices rebounded, with spot gold surpassing the $5,100 per ounce mark for the first time since January 30. By February 12, spot gold had slightly retreated to $5,071.605 per ounce as of the latest update, yet it remained at historically high levels.
With gold prices trading high, the concept of "gold as a store of value" has led many to consider exchanging old gold jewelry for new pieces. This allows consumers to update their accessories while indirectly preserving asset value.
According to reports, this type of "gold exchange" consumption has significantly increased. Consumers can trade in old gold jewelry for new styles by paying a processing fee to the store.
However, one consumer, Auntie Yan, encountered an unpleasant experience during such an exchange. She brought 17 grams of old gold jewelry to exchange for a new necklace but received only about 9 grams in return. She recalled that the salesperson explicitly promised a "one-to-one exchange by weight."
Chat records between Auntie Yan and the salesperson showed the latter clearly stating "one gram for one gram." During the selection and transaction process, the salesperson did not proactively display the necklace's weight tag or clearly inform her of the actual weight.
Auntie Yan's daughter, Ms. Zhu, who was present during the exchange, noticed the document indicated "around 9 grams" and raised a question. The salesperson allegedly replied, "It is 17 grams." After discovering the significant discrepancy, the mother and daughter returned to the gold store to seek an explanation.
The store manager explained that the so-called "1:1 exchange" referred to value equivalence, not weight equivalence. The store offered two types of exchanges: one based on equal weight with an additional processing fee, and another based on equal value with the fee included in the total price.
The necklace Auntie Yan selected was priced at 21,567 yuan. The exchange was conducted based on this value, meaning her old gold and the new necklace were considered equal in price. Based on this calculation, the effective price per gram for the new necklace reached 2,341.69 yuan, far exceeding market rates for gold jewelry.
Ms. Zhu firmly denied being informed of these terms, stating, "The crucial aspect of gold is its weight. Did they mention a single word about this during the process?" The store provided an hour-long video of the transaction, but due to background noise, key conversations were unclear. It was only confirmed that the exchange method was mentioned when small gold beans were exchanged.
The store manager proposed resolving the issue by either allowing a return or re-conducting the exchange based on weight. They indicated that a resolution had been previously considered, but misunderstandings in communication may have occurred. However, Ms. Zhu has refused the offer and is considering legal action.
This incident is not isolated. Another consumer, Ms. Qian, reported that she and her mother brought 46.96 grams of old gold jewelry to a store on October 17 for an exchange. She explicitly requested a "weight-for-weight" exchange but was allegedly misled into accepting a "fixed-price" gold item. As a result, the 46.96 grams of old jewelry were exchanged for only 25.939 grams of new jewelry, nearly halving the weight, with an effective price exceeding 2,000 yuan per gram, well above market norms.
Regarding whether such practices constitute fraud, a lawyer from Beijing Zhongkai (Hangzhou) Law Firm explained that fraud under the Consumer Rights Protection Law requires an intention of illegal possession, such as misleading consumers despite being unable to provide the promised goods or services. Since the store did provide exchange products, it is difficult to classify the act as fraud. The core dispute lies in differing interpretations of the exchange pricing method. In such cases, consumers may claim "major misunderstanding" during contract formation and seek to void the contract, with both parties returning the exchanged items.