"Non transferable, replaceable and refundable..." At present, consumers often see similar "consumption instructions" when purchasing various tickets or annual cards. So, since it is a prior statement, is this kind of "notice" of course effective in the dispute settlement afterwards? Recently, a case of the court has aroused widespread concern.
In order to watch the fireworks show, the consumer Mr. Cheng bought an annual card of Shanghai Disneyland. As a result, the fireworks show was cancelled due to the weather. Mr. Cheng decided to give up his admission and asked for a refund, but the park refused. For this reason, he took the garden party to the court. The court recently made a judgment of first instance: the park returned the remaining amount of Mr. Cheng's annual card; At the same time, the plaintiff's other claims were rejected by the court (according to the surging news on May 15).
Of course, the above judgment is not the final judgment of the court, and for different cases, the court also needs to deal with specific situations, so it is difficult to have a "one size fits all" answer for similar situations. However, the determination of such a judgment on the validity of the "Notice" is thought-provoking: why is the "non transferable, replacement and refund" and other contents explicitly agreed by the park side in the "Notice" not certainly valid? In this case, if there are similar contents in other ticket and card purchase contracts, such as air tickets, ship tickets, train tickets, annual cards, etc., will their effectiveness be reliable? Therefore, such a seemingly ordinary annual pass dispute involves a large number of industries and consumers, which deserves people's in-depth consideration.
The clause of "Annual Pass cannot be transferred, replaced and refunded" in the "Notice" of the Park is legally called an exemption clause (the Park has thus exempted its own responsibility for refunding, etc.). At the same time, since this kind of contract is a uniform style clause made and provided by one party unilaterally in advance, it is also called a format clause in law. Because the exemption clause and standard clause are prepared by one party in advance, and the other party has only the option to accept or reject their contents, how to determine their effectiveness, and there are also some special rules in law. For example, regarding the effect of the exemption clause, Article 506 of the Civil Code of China stipulates that if one party causes property losses to the other party due to intentional or gross negligence, the exemption clause exempting such liability is invalid; As for the validity of standard terms, Article 497 of the Civil Code stipulates that standard terms that unreasonably exempt or reduce one's own liability, increase the other's liability, and limit the other's main rights are invalid. In addition, China's consumer protection law also has clear provisions on the limitation of standard terms. The purpose of the above provisions in the law is very clear, which is to prevent one party to the contract from limiting the other party's rights by taking advantage of its actual advantageous position, to hinder the fairness of transactions, and to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of a "party to the contract" with such a large and dispersed number of consumers.
Then, how should the judicial authorities correctly understand and apply the above provisions in specific disputes? How should consumers effectively safeguard their rights and interests? Are all kinds of exemption clauses and standard clauses in real life effective or invalid? Of course, the specific answer depends on the specific case. Just like in the case of Mr. Cheng, the court of first instance ordered the park to return the balance of the annual pass, but did not support the plaintiff's demands for apology, which is exactly the specific operation of judicial jurisdiction. But one thing is very clear: whether in legislation or justice, "non transferability, replacement and refund" and other "consumption instructions" may not be reliable for "park owners". In the future, in such fields as annual pass sales and ticket sales, how should the "park owners" ensure that the legitimate needs and rights of consumers are respected and realized will become a major problem that the relevant industries need to face together.
For the "Gardeners", it is a more pragmatic and wise choice to constantly improve and refine services and give consumers more respect and choice, rather than relying on a "notice" as the "exemption gold medal".
