Recently, the event that ‘CNKI changed the minimum recharge to 0.5 yuan’ caused a hot debate. On May 25, 2018, Liu, a college student, was asked to pay 7 yuan when she downloaded the literature on CNKI.  The page also provided a variety of recharge methods, but the minimum recharge amount was limited to 50 yuan. Liu can only top up 50 yuan to her account for downloading 7 yuan of literature. After purchasing the literature, Liu asked the customer service to return the balance, but the customer service said that the refund required a service fee, and the refund process was complex and the cycle was long, so Liu was suggested to continue to use it. The two sides failed to reach an agreement, so Liu prosecuted the CNKI to the Gusu Court.

The legal knowledge in this case:

According to the second paragraph of article 9 and the second and third paragraphs of article 26 of the law on the protection of the rights and interests of consumers, the Gusu Court adjudged that the provisions on the minimum amount of recharging in the recharge center runned by CNKI were invalid.

A consumer shall have the right to choose commodities or services by hinself/herself, shall have the right to choose the varieties of commodities or modes of services by himself/herself, and shall independently decide whether to buy or not to buy any commodity. The stipulation of the limit of minimum recharge not only occupies Liu’s surplus funds, but also infringes her right of free choice and fair transaction. According to the second paragraph of article 39 of the contract law, standard terms are provisions which are prepared in advance by a party for repeated use and are not negotiated with the other party when executing contract. On its website, CNKI presented the article 19 that ‘the recharge amount cannot be refunded, and there is no time limit for the purchase or the recharge amount until it is used up’ of the answering readers’ questions column. They are the standard terms and limit the main rights of Liu, so the content should be invalid.

There are many similar cases in life, such as the China mobile communication group, Yuxian branch which sets the minimum consumption by using the combo service. In this administrative punishment case, the China mobile Yuxian branch stipulated in its 3g service agreement: ‘Party A shall not report to stop, sell, transfer, change the brand, and shall not use the mobile phone separately from the binding phone number, otherwise party B will not give away the phone fee’. This article limited the consumer’s right of free choice, which belongs to the invalid standard terms.

How should consumer safeguard the legal rights and interests?

Firstly, learn to recognize standard terms. Taking the stipulation of the supermaket as an example, ‘Goods sold in our store are not refundable or exchangeable’, and ‘Goods marked with the words of processing shoes or special price shoes are not refundable or exchangeable’.

Secondly, negotiate a settlement with the runner, which is quick, simple and is an ideal way to resolve disputes for both consumers and runners.

Thirdly, request Consumer’s Association or other concililation organizations established according to law to concililate, or to appeal to the relevant administrative departments, such as the Administrative Departments for Industry and Commerce.

Forthly, apply to the arbitration institution for arbitration according to the arbitration agreement reached with the runner.

Fifthly, prosecute the runner. Taking this case as an example, Liu appealed to the court when he could not solve the dispute with CNKI. The company had returned the money to Liu before the Gusu Court made the decision, and the court adjudged that the provisions of the CNKI recharge center on the minimum recharge amount were invalid. It can be seen that litigation is an effective way to resolve disputes.

How should runner set up standard terms reasonably?

As a reusable item, standard terms greatly facilitate the transaction between runners and consumers. Moreover, the legislation does not stipulate that all standard terms are invalid. Therefore, runners may not dare to set standard terms due to an individual case.

The author suggests that runners should try their best to be fair and reasonable when setting up standard terms, i.e. consider the feelings of consumers, rather than blindly pursue their own interests. Taking this case as an example, the contradiction between Liu and CNKI is mainly that the customer service fails to refund the money to Liu as soon as possible, and CNKI sets the terms that consumers cannot apply for refund. So, how can consumers have no complaints? In cooperation with third-party payment platforms, it is understandable for CNKI to charge fees, but it should also simplify the refund process and shorten the refund cycle (for example, within 7 days). So, even if the company set a minimum limit and charge fees, consumers are easier to accept.

Buying and selling is mutual. While considering their own interests, both runners and consumers should also think from the other party’s perspective, so as to achieve a win-win situation.