In the Philippines, a buyer who has placed and paid for an online order does not generally enjoy an automatic, blanket “cooling-off” right to cancel for any reason before shipment, at least not in the same way that some foreign jurisdictions do for distance selling. The answer usually depends on contract formation, the seller’s terms and conditions, the stage of fulfillment, the nature of the goods, the payment method used, and whether the seller has committed any legal or contractual breach.

That is the core rule. Everything else flows from it.

This article explains the full legal picture: when a buyer may cancel, when a refund is required, what rules govern online merchants, how platform policies interact with Philippine law, what happens with pre-orders and reservations, and what remedies a buyer may pursue if the seller refuses to return the money.

1) The starting point: there is no broad statutory right to cancel just because the buyer changed their mind

Philippine law protects consumers, including online buyers, but it does not generally create a universal legal rule that says:

“A consumer may cancel any online purchase before shipment and automatically get a full refund for any reason.”

That kind of rule is common in some other jurisdictions. In the Philippines, the more accurate legal approach is this:

A buyer may cancel if the contract or seller’s policy allows it.
A buyer may cancel if the seller agrees.
A buyer may cancel if the seller has not yet accepted the order in a legally binding sense.
A buyer may rescind, refuse, or demand a refund if there is fraud, misrepresentation, illegality, impossibility, non-performance, unfair terms, or a breach of consumer law.
A buyer may have payment-side remedies such as reversal or chargeback, depending on the payment channel.

So the first legal question is not “Has it shipped yet?” but rather:

Has a binding sale already been formed, and if so, on what terms?

2) Why shipment matters, but is not the whole issue

“Before shipment” matters because it often indicates that:

the seller may not yet have fully performed;
the goods may still be under the seller’s control;
cancellation may impose less prejudice or cost on the seller; and
the seller may still be able to reverse the transaction internally.

But non-shipment by itself does not automatically entitle the buyer to a refund. In law, shipment is only one fact among several.

For example:

If the seller’s terms say orders may be cancelled before dispatch, the buyer usually can cancel.
If the seller’s terms say all confirmed orders are final, the issue becomes whether those terms are valid, fair, clearly disclosed, and applicable.
If the seller has not yet accepted the order, the buyer is in a stronger position to withdraw.
If the seller already accepted payment and confirmed the sale, the seller may argue the contract is perfected and binding.

3) Contract law framework: when an online sale becomes binding

Under Philippine civil law, a contract of sale is generally perfected by meeting of the minds on the object and the price. In ordinary terms, once the parties agree on:

what is being sold, and
for what price,

a sale may already be perfected, even before delivery.

In the online context, however, this is more nuanced because websites and apps usually structure transactions through staged steps:

product listing;
cart checkout;
order submission;
payment;
order acknowledgment;
seller confirmation;
packing/processing;
shipment.

The legal significance of these steps depends heavily on the seller’s posted terms.

A. Product listing is often only an invitation, not a binding offer

A product page is often treated as an invitation to make an offer, not the offer itself. The buyer, by clicking “Place Order” or “Buy Now,” may be the one making the offer to buy.

B. Order acknowledgment is often not acceptance

Many merchants state that an automatically generated email or app notice saying “We received your order” is not yet acceptance, but only acknowledgment.

C. Acceptance may occur only upon confirmation or shipment

Some terms say the contract is formed only when the seller:

sends an order confirmation,
issues an invoice,
charges the payment successfully and confirms the order, or
dispatches the goods.

If those terms are clearly disclosed and not unlawful, they often govern the issue.

D. Why this matters for cancellation

If the seller has not yet accepted the order under its own terms, the buyer is in a strong position to argue that the buyer’s order can still be withdrawn and the money should be returned.

If the seller has already accepted, cancellation depends on the agreement, consumer protection rules, or breach by the seller.

4) The Consumer Act protects buyers, but it does not create a universal no-fault pre-shipment cancellation right

The Consumer Act of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 7394) protects consumers against deceptive, unfair, and unconscionable sales acts and practices. It also governs labeling, warranties, product quality, and remedies.

In the online-purchase setting, the Consumer Act is especially relevant when the seller:

misrepresents the item;
uses deceptive advertising;
fails to disclose important terms;
imposes unfair or abusive conditions;
takes payment but cannot actually supply the item;
delays fulfillment without proper disclosure; or
refuses refunds despite legal or contractual grounds.

However, the Consumer Act does not generally say that every online buyer may cancel for mere change of mind before shipment.

That distinction is important.

The law is stronger when there is seller fault

A buyer’s right becomes much stronger if the seller:

accepted payment for an item that is actually unavailable;
advertised falsely;
materially changed the terms after payment;
cannot deliver within the promised period;
imposed undisclosed fees or conditions;
acted in bad faith;
refuses to cancel even though the order has not yet been accepted or processed;
or used misleading “no refund” language to avoid a refund that is otherwise legally due.

5) “No cancellation, no refund” policies are not absolute

Many online sellers post language such as:

“All sales are final.”
“No cancellation once order is placed.”
“Strictly no refund.”
“No return, no exchange.”

In Philippine law, these statements are not automatically conclusive.

A merchant cannot rely on a boilerplate policy to defeat rights arising from:

fraud,
mistake,
non-delivery,
failure of consideration,
defective goods,
misrepresentation,
unlawful or unconscionable contract terms,
or mandatory consumer protections.

So a “no cancellation” clause may be enforceable for a simple change of mind, especially where the order is custom, special-order, or already committed. But it is much weaker where:

the seller has not yet accepted or processed the order,
the seller has not incurred real reliance costs,
the item is out of stock,
the promised shipping date cannot be met,
or the clause is vague, hidden, or unfair.

Likewise, a “no refund” policy does not justify keeping money for goods that will not be supplied.

6) The strongest grounds for cancellation and refund before shipment

A buyer’s legal position is strongest in the following situations:

A. The seller has not yet accepted the order

If the transaction is still at the order-submission stage, and the seller’s terms state that the seller may accept or reject orders later, the buyer can argue the offer was withdrawn before acceptance. In that case, any payment taken should ordinarily be reversed or refunded.

B. The item is out of stock or unavailable

If the seller cannot fulfill the order, the buyer is entitled to get the money back. The seller cannot keep payment for a sale it cannot perform.

C. There was a pricing, product, or listing error that affects consent

If the order rests on a serious mistake or misleading listing, cancellation may be proper. The outcome depends on fault, reasonableness, and the terms.

D. The seller changed the terms after checkout

Examples:

higher price demanded after payment,
different shipping fee,
different product variant,
longer delivery time than advertised,
substitution without consent.

These may justify cancellation and refund.

E. The seller failed to ship within the promised or reasonable period

Even before shipment, if the seller misses the promised timeframe or an unreasonable delay occurs, the buyer may treat that as non-performance and demand refund.

F. The goods are prohibited, illegal, or impossible to deliver

A contract for unlawful goods or an impossible sale cannot be enforced normally.

G. The buyer’s consent was vitiated

Fraud, intimidation, undue influence, or mistake can undermine the transaction.

H. The payment was unauthorized or erroneous

If the buyer did not actually authorize the transaction, or was charged twice, the buyer may pursue both merchant-side refund and payment-side reversal.

7) The weakest grounds: pure change of mind

A buyer is on the weakest legal ground when the buyer simply says:

“I changed my mind.”
“I found it cheaper elsewhere.”
“I do not need it anymore.”
“I ordered by impulse.”
“I want to cancel, though nothing is wrong.”

In that scenario, the buyer’s success usually depends on:

the seller’s cancellation policy;
marketplace rules;
whether the order has already been confirmed;
whether the item is made-to-order, personalized, reserved, or special-imported;
and whether the seller has already incurred handling costs.

A seller may voluntarily allow cancellation before shipment, but that is often policy-based, not necessarily a legal duty.

8) Online marketplace rules versus legal rights

A major practical point in the Philippines is that many purchases happen through platforms rather than directly from the merchant’s own website or social media page.

Examples include:

marketplaces,
food and grocery apps,
social-commerce channels,
and payment-linked storefronts.

Platform policy is not the same as the law

A marketplace may allow:

cancellation before the seller ships,
instant refund if the seller does not confirm,
automatic cancellation after a certain period,
wallet credit instead of cash refund,
dispute procedures.

These are contractual/platform mechanisms, not always legal rights created by statute.

Still, they matter because the buyer agreed to the platform’s terms and because they often define the real-world remedy.

The hierarchy usually looks like this

Mandatory law
The seller’s terms and conditions
The platform’s rules and workflows
The specific facts of the order

A platform cannot lawfully take away rights the law already gives. But where the law is silent on no-fault cancellation, platform rules often fill the gap.

9) Payment completed does not always mean the seller can keep the money

Many buyers assume that once payment is captured, the seller automatically has a vested right to keep it. That is not always true.

Payment before shipment may still need to be refunded where:

the order is cancelled before acceptance;
the seller cannot perform;
the parties mutually rescind;
there is a void or voidable basis;
the seller breaches the promised timeline;
or the platform’s rules require reversal.

The legal concept here is simple: money paid without a valid basis to retain it should generally be returned.

If the seller has not yet shipped and has not incurred exceptional costs, the seller’s justification for retaining the full amount becomes weaker, especially where cancellation is prompt.

10) Reservation fees, deposits, and down payments

These require careful distinction.

A. Reservation fee

A reservation fee is often used in pre-orders, limited stock, or special releases. Its refundability depends on the terms and the true nature of the payment.

Questions to ask:

Was the reservation fee expressly stated to be non-refundable?
Was that term clearly disclosed before payment?
Did the seller actually reserve inventory in reliance on it?
Is the fee reasonable, or is it punitive?
Did the seller later fail to supply the item?

A seller may have a stronger case for retaining a reasonable reservation fee if it was clearly disclosed and legitimately tied to holding inventory or turning away other buyers. But if the seller later cannot perform, refund becomes much more likely.

B. Down payment or partial payment

A down payment toward a sale is part of the price. If the sale is cancelled lawfully, the issue becomes whether the seller may deduct actual losses or whether the full amount must be returned.

C. Earnest money

In a perfected contract of sale, earnest money is typically considered part of the purchase price and proof of the perfected sale. That can strengthen the seller’s argument that the contract is already binding. But it still does not excuse non-performance or fraud.

11) Pre-orders, made-to-order items, and custom goods

This is one of the most important exceptions in practice.

Where the item is:

personalized,
custom-made,
made-to-order,
imported specifically for the buyer,
specially assembled,
or produced only upon order,

the seller’s right to refuse cancellation is generally stronger.

Why? Because the seller may have already:

ordered materials,
allocated labor,
committed to a supplier,
or lost the chance to sell to someone else.

So even before shipment, the buyer may have limited cancellation rights for such goods, especially where the policy was clearly disclosed.

But even here, the seller still cannot escape liability for:

misrepresentation,
unreasonable delay,
failure to deliver,
making something materially different from what was ordered,
or unfair and hidden terms.

12) Cash refund, wallet credit, store credit, or voucher?

A recurring issue is whether the seller can insist on:

store credit,
app wallet credit,
vouchers,
or exchange only,

instead of a cash or original-payment-method refund.

The answer depends on the basis of the refund.

When store credit is more defensible

If the refund is granted purely as a courtesy for a change-of-mind cancellation, the seller may have more room to impose store-credit options if that was the clearly disclosed policy.

When cash or payment reversal is more defensible

If the refund is legally owed because:

the seller cannot deliver,
the goods are unavailable,
the order was not validly accepted,
the seller breached the timeline,
or the transaction was unauthorized,

the buyer has a stronger argument for an actual refund to the original payment source, not merely store credit.

A merchant should not convert a legally due refund into forced store credit without a valid contractual or legal basis.

13) Shipping fees, processing fees, and cancellation charges

Because the topic is cancellation before shipment, three separate questions arise:

A. Shipping fee not yet incurred

If no shipment has occurred and no courier booking cost was actually incurred, it is harder to justify retaining a shipping fee.

B. Processing fee actually incurred

Some payment processors or merchants do incur non-recoverable charges. Whether these may be deducted depends on:

prior disclosure,
reasonableness,
good faith,
and whether the cancellation is voluntary or due to seller fault.

A seller is in a better position to deduct a reasonable processing cost if the cancellation is purely discretionary and the deduction was clearly stated. That position weakens where cancellation results from the seller’s own non-performance.

C. Penalty charges

Punitive cancellation charges are more vulnerable to challenge, especially if they are hidden, excessive, one-sided, or unrelated to actual loss.

14) COD orders and unpaid orders

If the buyer placed an order through cash on delivery and wants to cancel before shipment, the analysis often becomes simpler because no money has yet been transferred.

The buyer still may be in breach of platform rules or merchant policy, but the refund issue disappears because there is no payment to return.

Even then, repeated bad-faith COD orders may lead to:

account restrictions,
blocked access to COD,
or platform sanctions.

That is more a policy matter than a traditional refund dispute.

15) Credit card, debit card, e-wallet, bank transfer: why payment method matters

The buyer’s remedies can differ substantially based on how payment was made.

A. Credit card

Credit card users may have access to dispute or chargeback processes through the issuing bank, subject to bank rules and card network standards. This is not the same thing as a direct statutory cancellation right, but it can be a powerful practical remedy.

Typical grounds may include:

goods not received,
cancelled order not refunded,
duplicate charge,
unauthorized transaction,
merchant misrepresentation.

B. Debit card

Possible, but often more difficult in practice than credit card disputes.

C. E-wallet

E-wallets may have internal dispute systems, but the outcome depends on their terms and evidence.

D. Bank transfer

This is often the hardest route for recovery because the transfer may be final. The buyer may need to pursue the merchant directly, then escalate through DTI, small claims, or other proceedings.

16) E-commerce law recognizes online transactions, but does not itself create a universal cancellation rule

The E-Commerce Act (Republic Act No. 8792) gives legal recognition to electronic documents, electronic signatures, and online transactions. It helps validate online contracting and digital proof.

Its main contribution here is that:

online agreements and terms can be legally binding;
electronic communications can prove offer, acceptance, and cancellation;
screenshots, emails, chat logs, order confirmations, and payment receipts matter.

The E-Commerce Act does not, by itself, create a general right to cancel an online order before shipment for any reason. Instead, it provides the legal infrastructure for proving what happened in the transaction.

17) Evidence matters: the case often turns on screenshots and timestamps

In online-purchase disputes, the legal outcome often depends on records such as:

product listing at the time of purchase;
merchant cancellation and refund policy;
checkout page disclosures;
order acknowledgment email;
order confirmation email;
chat messages with seller or support;
payment receipt;
promised shipping date;
notice that item is packed, booked, or awaiting courier;
request to cancel and seller’s reply;
proof that no shipment occurred.

In practice, a buyer who asks to cancel should preserve:

screenshots,
timestamps,
order number,
policy pages,
and all messages.

Because in many disputes, the seller later changes its position to say:

“Order was already confirmed,”
“Item was already endorsed,”
“No cancellation allowed,”
or “Refund only to wallet.”

The documents decide the issue.

18) A seller’s duty to act in good faith

Even where no express cancellation right exists, Philippine contract law and consumer law still expect parties to act in good faith.

Good faith matters especially where:

the buyer requested cancellation immediately;
the order had not yet been processed;
the seller had not yet incurred significant costs;
the item remained in stock and resellable;
the seller’s own terms are ambiguous;
or support agents gave inconsistent information.

A court, regulator, or mediator may look unfavorably on a seller who rigidly insists on keeping the buyer’s full payment despite minimal or no prejudice.

19) Delay before shipment: when waiting becomes a breach

Many online disputes are really delay cases, not pure cancellation cases.

Examples:

“Ships in 2 days” became 3 weeks.
“Ready stock” turned out to be backorder.
“Delivery in Metro Manila within 48 hours” was missed.
The seller keeps saying “please wait,” but no dispatch happens.

When the promised shipping or delivery period is material, substantial delay may entitle the buyer to cancel and demand refund.

If the time was not expressly guaranteed, the law may still imply performance within a reasonable time, depending on the nature of the goods and the circumstances.

Repeated delay, silence, or inability to give a firm dispatch date can amount to non-performance.

20) Out-of-stock after payment: a common and clear refund case

If the seller accepted payment but later says:

the item is out of stock,
the wrong stock count was shown,
the supplier cannot provide it,
or the order cannot be fulfilled,

the buyer is ordinarily entitled to a refund.

A seller cannot replace a refund with indefinite waiting unless the buyer agrees. A seller cannot force substitution with a different item unless the buyer agrees. A seller cannot compel voucher-only resolution unless that was validly agreed and legally defensible.

This is not really a discretionary cancellation anymore. It is a failed sale.

21) Social media sellers and informal online selling

Many transactions in the Philippines happen through:

Facebook pages,
Instagram accounts,
Viber,
TikTok shops,
live selling,
and chat-based arrangements.

The same basic legal principles still apply:

there can be a binding sale online;
representations matter;
payment receipts matter;
deceptive acts can violate consumer law;
and refusal to return money despite inability to supply can create liability.

The challenge with informal sellers is often enforcement, not the absence of rights.

A buyer dealing with an unregistered or hard-to-trace seller may have a right in theory but difficulty collecting in practice.

22) Business-to-consumer versus consumer-to-consumer sales

The law is generally more protective when the seller is engaged in trade or business.

If the transaction is between two ordinary individuals, some consumer-protection rules may be less directly applicable, though the Civil Code still governs consent, sale, fraud, damages, and restitution.

So the buyer’s legal position may differ depending on whether the seller is:

a registered business,
a marketplace merchant,
a reseller,
or a private individual disposing of personal property.

23) Children, mistaken orders, and unauthorized family purchases

Sometimes a buyer claims:

a child placed the order,
someone used the account without consent,
a family member clicked by mistake.

These are fact-sensitive cases. The issue becomes whether there was valid consent, actual authority, negligence in account control, and whether payment authorization occurred.

The buyer may have stronger grounds if:

the payment instrument was used without authorization;
the order was cancelled immediately;
no shipment occurred;
and the seller had no legitimate reliance.

24) Can a seller refuse to cancel because the item is already “packed”?

Yes, possibly. But “packed” is not the same as “shipped,” and neither label automatically ends the inquiry.

A seller may argue that once the item is packed:

labor has been spent,
warehouse processing has occurred,
the order is too far along to reverse.

That can matter contractually. But whether the seller may retain the full amount still depends on:

policy disclosure,
actual costs incurred,
whether shipment truly has not happened,
and whether cancellation is due to buyer whim or seller fault.

A seller who merely says “already packed” but cannot show meaningful processing may have a weaker defense.

25) Refund timing: “approved refund” is not the same as “completed refund”

Even where cancellation is accepted, buyers often ask how soon the refund must be returned.

Philippine law does not supply a single universal refund deadline for all online purchases in all contexts. Timing depends on:

merchant policy,
platform rules,
payment channel,
processor timelines,
and reason for refund.

Still, refund must generally be made within a reasonable time, and unjustified delay can itself become a dispute.

A merchant should not indefinitely hold the funds after agreeing to refund.

26) Is specific performance possible instead of refund?

Sometimes the buyer does not want cancellation at all, but actual shipment. Legally, the buyer may in some cases demand performance rather than rescind. But where the topic is pre-shipment cancellation, the more realistic remedy is usually:

refund,
rescission,
damages,
or administrative complaint.

Specific performance is harder where inventory is gone, the item is generic and sold out, or the seller is non-cooperative.

27) Can the buyer also recover damages?

Potentially yes, depending on the facts.

Damages may be claimed where the seller acted in bad faith, fraudulently, or in breach of contract. Possible theories may include:

actual damages,
moral damages in appropriate cases,
exemplary damages in extreme cases,
attorney’s fees in proper circumstances.

But in ordinary consumer disputes over modest online purchases, the practical focus is usually on:

refund of the purchase price,
reversal of charges,
and possibly reimbursement of direct losses.

28) Government and legal remedies in the Philippines

If the seller refuses to refund despite valid grounds, the buyer may consider:

A. Direct merchant escalation

Customer support, platform dispute channels, merchant email, formal demand.

B. DTI complaint mechanisms

The Department of Trade and Industry is a key venue for consumer complaints involving sellers and merchants.

C. Payment dispute process

Bank, card issuer, e-wallet, payment gateway.

D. Small claims court

For money recovery, especially where the amount falls within the small claims framework and the issue is straightforward.

E. Civil action

For more complex disputes or higher-value claims.

F. Criminal complaint in proper cases

Only where the facts indicate fraud or other criminal conduct, not merely a routine refund disagreement.

29) A formal demand letter often matters

Before formal escalation, a written demand can strengthen the buyer’s position. It should identify:

date of order,
item purchased,
amount paid,
payment method,
current order status,
reason cancellation is justified,
basis for refund,
and a clear demand for return of funds within a reasonable period.

A precise demand often helps show:

the buyer acted promptly,
the seller was placed on notice,
and the refusal was deliberate.

30) Common practical scenarios and likely outcomes

Scenario 1: Buyer changed mind 10 minutes after ordering; seller has not confirmed; item not yet packed

Likely outcome: cancellation is often reasonable, especially if the seller’s terms permit pre-confirmation cancellation. Refund should be easier to justify.

Scenario 2: Buyer changed mind after payment; seller already confirmed; item is standard stock; no shipment yet

Likely outcome: depends mostly on seller/platform policy. No automatic statutory right, but a cooperative seller often can still reverse it.

Scenario 3: Buyer changed mind; item is personalized or made-to-order

Likely outcome: seller has stronger grounds to refuse cancellation or deduct losses.

Scenario 4: Seller says item is out of stock after payment

Likely outcome: buyer should get refund.

Scenario 5: Seller keeps delaying shipment beyond promised period

Likely outcome: buyer may cancel and demand refund.

Scenario 6: Seller changed price or terms after checkout

Likely outcome: buyer may refuse and seek refund.

Scenario 7: Buyer paid by credit card; seller accepted cancellation but no refund is posted

Likely outcome: buyer may escalate to card issuer while keeping records of seller communications.

Scenario 8: Marketplace auto-cancelled due to seller non-confirmation

Likely outcome: refund usually follows the platform workflow; legal claim is generally straightforward if funds are not returned.

31) Misleading refund language that buyers should watch for

These common phrases can be legally questionable depending on context:

“No refund under any circumstance.”
“Refund only after seller approval, even if item unavailable.”
“Refunds only as voucher, regardless of cause.”
“Payment is automatically forfeited once order is placed.”
“We may keep your full payment even if we cannot ship.”

These clauses are more vulnerable where they:

are hidden or not disclosed at checkout;
are one-sided;
contradict actual platform rules;
excuse the seller’s own non-performance;
or operate unfairly against consumers.

32) What online sellers should do to stay legally safer

From the seller’s side, the most defensible practice is to make the order flow and refund rules very clear:

when the buyer’s order is merely an offer;
when acceptance occurs;
whether cancellation is allowed and until what stage;
treatment of made-to-order goods;
shipping timelines;
refund method and timing;
fees, if any, and their basis.

Ambiguity is what creates most disputes.

33) The most important legal conclusion

In the Philippines, the “right to cancel and refund an online purchase before shipment” is not a broad, automatic no-questions-asked statutory right. It is instead a right that usually arises from one or more of the following:

The seller’s own cancellation/refund policy
The platform’s marketplace rules
Withdrawal before contractual acceptance
Seller breach or inability to perform
Misrepresentation, fraud, mistake, or unfair conduct
Payment-dispute remedies
General contract and restitution principles

That means the legal answer is always contextual.

Where the buyer simply changes their mind, the buyer’s rights are limited unless policy permits cancellation. Where the seller has failed, misled, delayed, or cannot supply the goods, the buyer’s right to a refund becomes much stronger. Where no shipment has yet occurred, the buyer often has a better factual and equitable position, but not an automatic one.

34) Bottom-line rules

A concise statement of Philippine law and practice would be:

No universal statutory cooling-off right for all online purchases before shipment.
Cancellation is usually allowed if the merchant or platform policy allows it.
Before acceptance of the order, the buyer has a stronger basis to withdraw.
After acceptance, mere change of mind may not be enough.
Refund is generally required if the seller cannot deliver, materially delays, misrepresents, or otherwise breaches the transaction.
“No cancellation/no refund” clauses are not absolute and cannot excuse unlawful or unfair conduct.
Custom, made-to-order, reserved, or personalized items are more difficult to cancel.
Payment method matters because card and wallet disputes may provide additional remedies.
Proof of terms, timing, and communications is critical.
DTI, small claims, and payment disputes remain available where the seller refuses to return money without valid basis.

35) Final legal synthesis

In Philippine law, the decisive issue is not simply whether the item has shipped. The real issue is whether the seller has already acquired a legal right to keep the buyer’s money under a valid and fair contract. Before shipment, that right is often less secure, especially where the order is not yet accepted, the seller has not materially relied, or the seller cannot perform. But absent seller fault or a favorable cancellation policy, a buyer who merely changes their mind cannot always compel cancellation.

So the true rule is neither “buyers can always cancel before shipment” nor “sellers may always refuse.” The correct rule is narrower and more precise:

Before shipment, a refund is legally strongest when the sale is not yet fully binding, when the seller has failed or cannot perform, or when consumer-protection principles override the seller’s policy.