China News Service, August 25th (Xie Yiguan, China-Singapore Finance and Economics reporter) In recent years, education and training has been the "hardest hit area" for consumer complaints.
In the first half of 2022, the National Consumers Association organized 20,223 complaints about training services, a year-on-year increase of 18.05%. Complaints about training services ranked third in the service field.
The main problems of consumer complaints are that the promises of refunds are not fulfilled, there are many false propaganda methods, and the inducement to apply for consumer loans to defraud money, etc.
According to the "Investigation Report on Consumer Cognition and Lead Collection of "Unfair Standard Terms", the China Consumers Association specially invited lawyers from the China Consumers Association to comment on the unfair standard terms in the field of education and training, which are strongly reflected by consumers.
Come and see which are the "overlord clauses"!
DISCLAIMER EXCLUSION OR REDUCING ITS OWN LIABILITY
"XX Online School does not guarantee (including but not limited to): ... 2. Users use any information downloaded or obtained through this service at their own risk; ..." If you see this sentence, you should be vigilant.
In the lawyer's view, the formulation of the exemption clause should follow the principle of fairness and focus on the protection of consumers' rights and interests.
Relevant laws have clearly stipulated the exemption clauses,
especially if the party providing the standard clauses unreasonably exempts or reduces its liability, the relevant exemption clauses are invalid due to violation of the principle of fairness
.
The business operator shall bear the guarantee responsibility for the goods or services it provides according to law.
The content of the materials obtained from receiving education and training services shall comply with legal provisions, and the operator shall bear this responsibility.
The standard clause of "at your own risk" is a circumstance that excludes its own responsibility, violates the principle of fairness, and is invalid.
Not all delivered at one time, but the contract is deemed to be delivered in full
You may have also seen this clause: XX class hours online recorded and broadcast courses, once the courses are sold, they will be permanently valid and support unlimited playback and learning. You can freely choose the time and place to log in to the APP to learn.
……After you log in to the APP and match the course purchase account, it is deemed that XX has completed the delivery of all virtual courses, and once the course is delivered, it will not be refunded or exchanged……
In this regard, the lawyer believes that, in the aforementioned situation,
the delivery of the courseware should be delivered as a whole, rather than in sections, that is, only when the operator has completed the recording of all the courseware and transmitted it to the consumer, can the operator be deemed to have completed the delivery. delivery obligation
.
Because the completion of delivery means the transfer of risk, if the delivery of some courseware is regarded as the completion of the delivery obligation, once the operator cannot continue to perform the delivery obligation, the risk of undelivered courseware will be borne by the consumer, making the consumer spend money The full price of the semi-finished courseware was purchased. This risk transfer behavior obviously violates the legal provisions, and its terms are also suspected of being invalid due to aggravating consumer responsibility.
Refunds are not allowed due to consumer personal reasons
In addition, there are such clauses: Party A shall not request a refund from Party B: including but not limited to the following refunds due to Party A's personal reasons.
Party A judges the teaching level, teaching management and arrangement of teachers from personal subjective viewpoints; cannot continue to enjoy the course service due to personal time arrangement; cannot continue to enjoy the course service due to personal physical condition...
In this regard, the lawyer commented that:
the operator does not allow refunds due to personal reasons of consumers or assumes responsibility for breach of contract in the form of consumers bearing all the remaining loss of tuition fees, which obviously violates the principle of fair trade
and aggravates consumer responsibility. Therefore, the relevant clauses listed in it are suspected of being invalid.
Applying to change the class requires consumers to give up the right to cancel the agreement and the right to apply for a refund
If you want to apply for changing the class during training, you may encounter such a clause: Party A has the right to apply to Party B for changing the class before the end of the service period (except for the extended warranty service period), and the right to apply is one and only one time. ; And after changing the class, Party A voluntarily waives the rights to cancel the agreement and apply for a refund as stipulated in this agreement.
The lawyer said that in terms of changing the class, the operator and the consumer can agree to change it, or the operator can also set reasonable conditions related to changing the class itself.
However, the operator excludes the consumer's right to cancel the contract and refund on the condition of changing the class, which obviously constitutes an unreasonable restriction on the consumer's rights, and also aggravates the consumer's responsibility, which is obviously not legal
.
Unless it encounters force majeure, no refund is allowed after the deadline
"Difficulty in refunding training fees" has always been a hot topic of complaints. If you see such clauses, pay attention: Party A cannot apply for refunds after 7 days of the course.
However, the training cannot be continued due to force majeure.
At this time, Party A must provide relevant supporting materials and can apply for a refund after Party B's review and confirmation.
(a) If you have not attended 16 class hours (including 16 class hours), the 16 class hour fee will be deducted, and the rest will be refunded.
(b) If more than 16 class hours are exceeded, the actual cost of class hours will be deducted, and the rest will be refunded.
In the lawyer's view,
if the refund is not allowed after the expiration date, which obviously exceeds the possible losses caused by the refund that the consumer foresaw or should have foreseen when the contract was concluded, the operator can claim the relevant breach of contract liability for the consumer's refund, but not Therefore, the exercise of the consumer's right to refund cannot be excluded
. This clause is obviously unreasonable and belongs to the circumstance of restricting and excluding consumers' rights.
Improper calculation method when withdrawing classes, not calculated according to the actual price
When withdrawing a course, you may encounter such terms: the total price of this course agreement is the price after discount, the original price is 38,640 yuan, 483 yuan / class hour (hereinafter referred to as the original price of the course), if Party A meets the refund conditions, and halfway If the course hours purchased after the refund is less than 32 hours, Party A will lose the preferential rights and interests. When refunding, the course fee should be deducted from the original price of the course, and the remaining amount will be refunded.
In this regard, the lawyer believes that from the perspective of the principle of fairness, the preferential price is more in line with the true value of the course, and it is also the actual transaction price, and the refund should be made according to the actual transaction price.
The original price refund agreement is of the same nature as the "no refund" clause, which belongs to "exempting its responsibility, aggravating the other party's responsibility, excluding the other party's main rights" and "excluding or restricting the rights of consumers, reducing or exempting the operator's responsibility, It is unfair and unreasonable for consumers to increase consumer responsibility
. ”
(Finish)