China News Service, September 28 (Xie Yiguan, a reporter from China-News Finance and Economics) With the popularity of automobiles, automobiles and auto insurance have become popular areas for consumer complaints.
Data show that in the first half of 2022, among the specific commodity complaints organized by the National Consumers Association, automobiles and parts ranked the top five in terms of complaints.
Recently, according to the "Investigation Report on Consumer Cognition and Lead Collection of "Unfair Standard Terms", the China Consumers Association invited lawyers from the China Consumers Association to comment on the unfair standard terms related to automobiles and auto insurance that consumers have strongly reflected on.
Exclude operators from bearing the quality guarantee responsibility for hidden defects through standard clauses
Example:
Vehicle acceptance should take place at the delivery location at the time of delivery.
Party A (consumer) should conduct careful inspection and confirmation, and if there is any objection, it should be raised to Party B (operator) on the spot.
Otherwise, Party B shall not be liable for the aforementioned problems found after the delivery of the contract vehicle.
Comments:
Operators are responsible for quality defects in the vehicles they sell, and should deliver vehicles that meet statutory and agreed quality standards to consumers.
Consumers are obliged to inspect vehicles, and should inspect vehicles in a timely manner and notify operators of quality objections.
Vehicle quality defects are divided into appearance defects and hidden defects.
For appearance defects, consumers can find them by visual observation through careful and careful inspection when the vehicle is delivered. Therefore, it is reasonable to agree that quality objections should be raised on the spot of delivery.
However, for hidden defects such as vehicle performance and quality that cannot be found on the spot through visual observation and can only be found after use, the standard terms stipulate that Party B will not be liable after delivery, which obviously shortens the inspection period unreasonably and aggravates the obligations of consumers. , which excludes the operator's warranty liability for quality defects, which is an unfair standard clause and is not legally binding.
Exclude the operator from being liable for the return of the double deposit in the event of a breach of contract through the standard clauses
Case:
On the date of signing the contract, Party A (consumer) pays a deposit of XX yuan to Party B (operator). If Party A fails to perform the contract as agreed, it has no right to request the return of the deposit.
If Party B fails to perform this contract as agreed, it shall return the deposit paid by Party A without any compensation.
The deposit will be paid for the car in the future, but the amount of the deposit shall not exceed the total amount of the car.
Comments:
The deposit has a guarantee function, and the penalty of the deposit is applicable to the breaching party.
The standard terms stipulate that consumers have no right to request the return of the deposit if they fail to perform the contract, but the operator does not need to return the deposit twice if he fails to perform the contract, and does not assume any liability for breach of contract damages. Liability for breach of contract, such as liquidated damages and compensation for losses, excludes unfair and unreasonable standard terms for consumers to claim compensation for breach of contract damages.
In addition, according to the law, the amount of the deposit shall not exceed 20% of the subject matter of the main contract, and the operator shall not stipulate an excessively high amount of deposit through standard clauses.
Reduce the liability of insurance companies by agreeing to pay according to liability
Case:
Compensation processing: The company shall be liable for compensation according to the proportion of accident liability borne by the driver of the insured vehicle in the accident.
If the accident liability ratio is not determined in the traffic accident determination document or the parties involved in the accident negotiate by themselves according to law, the company shall determine the accident liability ratio according to the following provisions, unless otherwise stipulated by laws, regulations and rules:
If the driver of the insured vehicle is fully responsible, the accident liability ratio is 100%; if the insured vehicle driver is primarily responsible, the accident liability ratio is 70%; if the insured vehicle driver is equally responsible, the accident liability ratio is 50%; If the driver bears secondary responsibility, the accident responsibility ratio is 30%; if the driver of the insured vehicle is not responsible in the accident, the accident responsibility ratio is 0.
If the insured accident does not involve other responsible parties, the driver of the insured vehicle shall be fully responsible.
Comments:
The standard clause of liability and payment confuses the claims settlement principles of vehicle loss insurance and third-party liability insurance, excludes the insured's legal right to request compensation for insurance money, and exempts or reduces the insurer's liability for compensation.
During the insurance liability period, if the insured vehicle has an accident of two or more parties within the scope of the insurance liability, resulting in the loss of the vehicle, if the public security traffic control department determines that the insured is not responsible for the accident, the insured has the right to choose to claim tort against the party responsible for the accident The right to claim damages, and the right to choose to claim the right to claim insurance money under the insurance contract from the insurer.
(Finish)