Returns and Exchanges in Physical Stores in Peru: Legal Right or Store Policy?

The mistake almost everyone makes

It’s common to assume that any store is legally required to accept a return or exchange just by showing the receipt, no matter the reason. When a business refuses — “we don’t do exchanges,” “no returns after purchase” — many people feel powerless, as if they had no rights at all.

The reality is more nuanced, and it turns on a distinction the Código de Protección y Defensa del Consumidor (Ley N.° 29571) draws clearly: one thing is the legal warranty, which exists by mandate of law and can’t be erased with a sign, and another entirely is a store’s exchange policy, a voluntary commercial benefit each business chooses whether to offer.

When the product is defective, the legal warranty controls, sign or no sign

If the product you bought doesn’t work, arrived damaged, or simply doesn’t meet what you reasonably expected of it, you’re not asking the store for a favor — you’re exercising a legal right. Article 18 of the Code defines idoneidad (fitness for purpose) as the match between what a consumer expects from a product and what they actually receive, considering what was offered, the advertising, and the conditions of the purchase. Article 19 reinforces that “the provider answers for the fitness and quality of the products and services offered.”

When a product isn’t fit for its purpose, article 1, numeral 1.1, literal e) gives you the right to choose between repair, replacement with a new or equivalent product, or a refund of the money paid — a mechanism similar to what other countries call a “lemon law.” You don’t have to settle for whatever option is most convenient for the seller.

This right is legal, per article 20’s own definition: a warranty is legal when, by mandate of law, “the marketing of a product […] is not permitted without meeting that warranty.” It exists whether or not there’s a paper warranty, and whether or not the store has an exchange policy.

Why the “no returns, no exchanges” sign doesn’t always apply

Here’s the piece most people don’t know: the Code has an entire section dedicated to abusive clauses (articles 49 and 50), and one of them is exactly this kind of sign when it’s used to deny a legal right.

Article 49.1 defines as abusive and therefore unenforceable any stipulation not individually negotiated that, against good faith, puts the consumer at a disadvantage or cancels their rights. Article 50, literal e) goes further and declares absolutely unenforceable clauses that “exclude or limit the legal rights recognized to consumers.”

In practical terms: if your product has a real defect, a “no returns, no exchanges” sign cannot take away your legal warranty, because that warranty is exactly one of the “legally recognized rights” that article 50 protects from being excluded by a one-sided clause from the seller. The sign can be valid for other cases (see the next section), but not to cancel the legal warranty against a defect.

When there’s no defect, the store’s policy is what controls

The other side of the coin matters just as much. If the product is in perfect condition and you want to exchange it because you didn’t like it, it didn’t fit, or you simply changed your mind, no article of the Code gives you that right by law. In that scenario, the “no returns, no exchanges” sign is valid, because it isn’t excluding any legal right — there simply isn’t a legal right involved to exclude.

Here the store can set its own rules: accepting exchanges only with tags attached, within a certain window, for store credit instead of a cash refund, or not accepting them at all. All of that is legitimate as long as it isn’t used to deny the legal warranty against a defective product.

The one caveat: if the store advertised an exchange policy (on the receipt, a sign in the store, or its website) and then refuses to honor it, that can amount to misleading advertising or a broken public offer — a different complaint, but still a valid one, to Indecopi.

Don’t confuse this with the online “right of withdrawal”

Another related myth: because a certain restitution right exists for distance purchases (article 59), some people assume a similar “cooling-off” window exists for in-store purchases. It doesn’t — and it doesn’t even apply automatically to online purchases either: article 59 requires the provider to have used one of the aggressive or deceptive commercial practices from article 58 to close the sale. Without that practice involved, there’s no restitution right, online or in a physical store — you can read more about how the right of withdrawal actually works for online purchases.

Bottom line

Before accepting a “no” from a store, ask yourself what kind of problem you actually have. If the product is defective or doesn’t meet what you reasonably expected, you have an unwaivable legal right to repair, replacement, or a refund, and no sign can take that away. If the product is fine and you simply changed your mind, you depend entirely on whatever policy the store chose to offer — and if that policy was publicly advertised, hold the store to it as what it is: a public offer it has to honor.