Education and training encounters an unfair format clause. Consumers can do this

Is it reasonable for consumers' personal reasons? What should I do if there is no refund? Why not calculate according to the actual price after the discount when retired, but calculate the original price of the course? On August 25, the Chinese Consumer Association commented on consumers' strong educational training fields.

Consumers will encounter the exemption clause when receiving education and training services, such as: a certain online school is not guaranteed (including but not limited); the user uses any information downloaded or obtained by this service, and its risk shall be borne by themselves ... These exemption declarations It is often excluded or reduced to the operator's own responsibilities.

In this regard, the China Consumers Association believes that the formulation of exemption clauses should follow the principle of fairness and focus on the protection of consumer rights. The format of the "risk" is a situation of excluding its own responsibilities and violations of the principle of peace, and it is invalid. Consumers should pay attention to the contract terms provided by the operator, and should be able to communicate with the operator in a timely manner for suspected unfair and unreasonable exemption clauses, and safeguard their legitimate rights and interests in accordance with the law. When developing relevant service contracts, operators should be cautious to formulate the exemption clauses to ensure compliance clauses.

Some consumers report that after the purchase and recording class, the operator actually did not deliver it all at one time, but the contract agreement was deemed to be delivered. Once the delivery was not returned, it took all the price to buy semi -finished courseware.

The China Consumers Association stated that the delivery of the courseware should be the overall delivery, not the division delivery, that is, when the operator completes all the courseware recording and all transmitted it to the consumers, it can be regarded as the operator to complete the delivery obligations. If the delivery of some courseware is considered as the completion of the delivery obligations, once the operator cannot continue to perform the delivery obligations, the risk of not delivering the courseware will be borne by consumers. Consumers should be vigilant and enhance their ability to identify such unfair and unreasonable terms.

Consumers often encounter clauses that are not allowed to refund due to personal reasons. The China Consumers Association pointed out that the operator does not allow the refund for personal reasons, or the consumer shall bear the liability of breach of contract in the form of losing the losses of all remaining courses. Behavior, the relevant terms listed are suspected of constituting invalid.

During receiving education and training services, consumers who want to apply for replacement class may encounter such clauses: Party A has the right to apply to Party B for the replacement class before the service period (except for the extension service period). And only once; after replacing the class, Party A voluntarily abandoned the right to terminate and apply for refund in the agreement agreed in this agreement.

The China Consumers Association stated that as far as the classification of the class is concerned, the operators can be replaced with consumer negotiation, or the operator can also set up reasonable conditions related to the replacement of the class itself, but the operator is based on the condition of replacing the class. Excluding the right to refund the contract withdrawal, it constitutes unreasonable restrictions on consumer rights, and also aggravates consumer responsibilities, and is not legitimate.

"Difficulty in training" has always been a hotspot of complaints. Consumers should pay attention to "unless you encounter irresistible resistance, or if you do not allow refunds to be allowed to go more than the deadline".

The China Consumers Association pointed out that the refund of the overdue is not allowed, and it obviously exceeds the loss that the consumer foresees or it should be expected due to the possible loss caused by the consumer. The exercise of consumer refund rights cannot be excluded because of this. Such clauses are obviously not reasonable, which is a situation of restricting and excluding consumer rights.

When retiring, consumers will encounter improper calculation methods when they withdraw from class. They do not calculate according to the actual price after the discount.

The China Consumers Association believes that from the perspective of fair principles, preferential prices are more in line with the true value of the course, and it is also a de facto transaction price. The refund should be carried out in accordance with the actual transaction price. According to the nature of the original price refund, as the nature of the "non -refund" clause, it belongs to "exempting its responsibilities, aggravating the other party's responsibilities, excluding the other's main rights" and "excluding or restricting consumer rights, reducing or exempting operators' responsibilities, and exempting the responsibilities of operators, and the responsibility of the operator, and the responsibility of the operator, and the responsibility of the operator, and the responsibility of the operator,, the responsibilities of the operator, and the responsibility of the operator,, Increase consumer responsibilities such as unfairness and unreasonable "clauses.

(Reporter Wang Haiyu)

- END -