Can I directly replace my home appliances with new ones when they encounter performance failures after purchasing the "replacement only, no repair" extended warranty service online? Recently, a case concluded by the People's Court of Suyu District, Suqian City, Jiangsu Province has provided an answer to the above question. In November 2022, Xiao Wang spent 5399 yuan on a well-known brand of floor cleaning robot on an e-commerce platform, and then paid 700 yuan to a technology company through the platform to purchase a "3-year replacement only, no repair" small home appliance extended warranty service. According to the service agreement, during the normal use of the product during the service period, if there is a performance failure caused by mechanical or electrical component damage within the scope of the three guarantees (excluding self disassembly, human and accidental damage), a new machine of the same model or price can be replaced, or the price difference can be compensated to exchange for an updated machine model; The extended warranty service is entrusted to a third-party service provider. If there are differences in fault identification between the two parties and they cannot reach a consensus through negotiation, the official test results of the original manufacturer shall prevail. In April 2025, when the robotic vacuum cleaner malfunctioned, Xiao Wang applied for an extended warranty service from the technology company and paid for the shipping cost to send the equipment to the designated location for repair. A certain optical display company issued a report after inspection, stating that "the rolling card card caused abnormal noise due to foreign objects, but after cleaning, it worked normally and did not involve mechanical or electronic component failures, and did not meet the conditions for replacement". The brand also issued a repair list stating that "there were no abnormalities detected". Xiao Wang expressed objection and the two parties failed to reach an agreement. Xiao Wang sued the technology company to the Suyu District Court, demanding that the company replace it with a new model of the same brand and grade according to the extended warranty service content (and make up for the market price difference), and bear the logistics cost of returning the product. During the trial, Xiao Wang argued that the robotic vacuum cleaner had malfunctions such as abnormal noises during operation, which fell within the scope of extended warranty services. However, the technology company only perfunctorily resolved the issue after cleaning, without providing effective maintenance records and video footage, nor fulfilling its replacement obligations as promised, which constituted a breach of contract. The technology company argued that the involved goods did not experience the agreed performance failure and did not meet the conditions for replacement. The court has found that Xiao Wang has provided evidence to prove that the robotic vacuum cleaner has a performance malfunction, fulfilling his burden of proof. The testing report and brand maintenance checklist submitted by the technology company can prove that the fault was caused by foreign object blockage and did not involve the agreed mechanical or electrical component damage. Although Xiao Wang raised objections to the authenticity of the above evidence and requested the technology company to provide evidence such as foreign objects and repair videos, he did not submit any counter evidence to support his claim and should bear the adverse consequences of the inability to provide evidence. Overall, the court ruled to reject Xiao Wang's lawsuit request. The verdict has now come into effect. The judge reminds consumers that when purchasing extended warranty services, they should carefully read the extended warranty terms and be aware that the promise of "replacement only, no repair" is not unconditionally applicable and is usually limited to the specific range of fault reasons promised by the merchant. If the merchant provides evidence to prove that the cause of the performance failure does not meet the replacement conditions, and the consumer does not recognize the validity of the merchant's evidence, they should bear further burden of proof for the performance failure meeting the replacement conditions. (New Society)