130,000 yuan "guaranteed class" tuition almost "float"
Be wary of pre-paid "pits" of education and training institutions
The Haidian District People ’s Court of Beijing recently convened the “Publication Meeting on Typical Cases of Disputes Concerning Education and Training Contracts of the Haidian Court”. Zhou Zongshan, head of the legal system section of the Haidian District Education Commission, said that from January to March this year, due to the impact of the new coronary pneumonia epidemic, the price difference between offline courses and online courses, and curriculum settings have attracted wide attention.
Ye Shunyao, head of the Civil Trial Division of the Haidian Court, said that from 2017 to 2019, the Haidian Court accepted a total of 1,329 cases of disputes over education and training contracts, including 375 in 2017, 360 in 2018, and 594 in 2019, a year-on-year increase of 65%. Overall, the number of cases of disputes over education and training contracts in Haidian District is on the rise, and disputes caused by prepaid contracts account for a relatively high proportion. "
A few days ago, trainee Wang and a training institution signed a judicial examination "guarantee class" agreement, agreed to pay a one-time tuition fee of 130,000 yuan, if that year failed to pass the judicial examination, the training institution will refund the tuition fee of 130,000 yuan.
"The judicial examination guarantee agreement signed between Wang and the training institution is the true meaning of both parties, and does not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and regulations, and has legal force." Lu Qiu, a judge of the Civil Trial Division of the Haidian Court, said that he did not perform at the training institution. In the event of a refund obligation, its behavior has already constituted a breach of contract, and the trainee has the right to require the training institution to perform the corresponding obligation in accordance with the contract. In the end, the court ruled that the training institution refunded Wang ’s 130,000 yuan in training costs.
Judge Lu Qiu reminded that there are three points that should be noted when choosing "guaranteed classes": first, before signing an education and training contract of such terms, students should fully investigate and understand the credit status, business reputation and training ability of the training institution to avoid hasty The signing of the contract caused difficulties in subsequent rights protection. At the same time, students should also strictly review the refund conditions agreed in the contract, whether they are consistent with the enrollment publicity and oral commitments, to avoid situations where the oral commitments are not implemented in writing.
Second, the "guaranteed" training also has the risk of failing to achieve the training effect. Any external assistance can only play a supporting role, and consumers cannot sit back and relax after receiving the "guaranteed" commitment because they have paid high training fees.
Third, when signing this type of education and training contract, consumers should focus on examining whether the refund clause in the contract is accompanied by specific conditions, and whether the agreed conditions are clear and clear. The promise is to sign the contract hastily.
"Tuition fee is 19,800 yuan. Before the formal start of the course, you can listen to the relevant courses of the training content reported." In order to successfully pass the UID exam, student Li signed a "Training and Service Agreement" with a training institution to register for the UID training course. . Two months later, Li did not want to continue to participate in the training courses and requested a refund of the tuition fee.
"Li has already started class and has signed on the list of students in the class." In the case trial, the training institution showed Li's lecture record and phone recording with Li, showing that Li was indeed signed in the class list. And recognized that he is already a formal student, "According to the agreement, no refund will be given after the formal start of the course."
In the end, the Haidian Court rejected Li's lawsuit. The court held that as a person with full civil capacity, Li should bear corresponding legal responsibility for his signature. Judge Lu Qiu emphasized that before signing the contract, it is necessary to fully and comprehensively understand the content of the training service provided by the training institution, so as to avoid blind choices and blind conclusions that lead to insufficient power to perform subsequent contracts and trigger disputes about refunds and withdrawals.
It is easy to pay money and difficult to refund, which makes many students "big head", and "hoarding class" encounters training institutions "running". In recent years, a training institution involved more than 200 cases of disputes over education and training contracts in the Haidian Court. When the trainee sued the training institution, he had already gone to the floor. Many student parents have paid a large amount of advance payment in advance, and tuition fees are paid to personal accounts through WeChat or Alipay.
According to reports, many education and training institutions on the market take the promise of full refund as a marketing strategy if they fail to achieve their training objectives, to attract training objects to purchase training courses or purchase training services in large amounts at once. However, after the fees are collected, or because of the training institution's own reasons (such as shortage of funds, changes in leased venues, etc.), it cannot continue to operate, or the contract cannot be performed due to the reasons of the training target (such as the younger students cannot accept the training content and insist on taking classes, etc.) Cause disputes. Some training institutions even maliciously took prepaid fees, and it is difficult to find traces after charging.
"Combining the characteristics of the education and training contract and trial experience, it is expected that disputes over the education and training contract may focus on the following three points in the future: First, the dispute may be caused by the failure to perform the contract on time; Second, the dispute may be caused by the change in the content of the contract or the failure to agree on the method of performance; The third is that when the contract cannot be performed, the two parties have differences on their responsibility and cause disputes. "Zhang Gangcheng, a member of the party group and vice president of the Haidian Court, introduced.
China Youth Daily · China Youth Daily trainee reporter Han Biao Source: China Youth Daily