China Mobile to set the term of charge

China Mobile set "the validity of the bill" whether the default of China Mobile company to set up some of the charges "validity", many consumers have been "swallowed money", downtime, this rule is the default?　　For this issue, in the "3 15 consumer Rights Day" after the second day, the University of China Mining Institute of Grammar teacher Liu Shutei and the Sino-Mobile Xuzhou branch in court. Outside the contract "Overlord clause" November 24, 2009, Liu Shutei in China Mobile Communications Group Co., Ltd. Xuzhou branch of the mine Dananhu Business Hall for a "Shenzhou line" mobile card, opened the "minimum monthly consumption of 10 yuan, a long-distance fee, effective on the day" package.　　But Liu Shutei on November 7, 2010 to call, suddenly found that the card has been shut down. But strangely enough, he was not shut down because he owed the fee.　　He on July 5, through China Mobile official website with UnionPay card online recharge over 50 yuan, was shut down, the account still has a balance of 11.70 yuan. What's going on?　　He went to the mobile business hall, only to be informed that this card has been "on October 23, 2010 due to expiration of the expiry of the outage." China Mobile phone is valid for the duration of the service, in addition to the "global" users outside the numerous services, in the recharge fixed amount of charge, the bill can be used in a fixed period of time, more than this period will be downtime. Due to the need to pay a certain type of fixed monthly fee, mobile Shenzhou and Unicom Ruyi, long City card prepaid mobile phone number are related to the issue of the validity of the bill.　　In Jiangsu, Zhejiang and other areas of mobile companies, there are provisions in this regard.　　Before Liu Shutei, many mobile users had been caught in the dilemma of "swallowing money": while they had to save, they "silted up" more and more. "At the time of handling said there is no base this month, only one months 6 dollars of caller ID, I have stored 80 yuan, this thought can be used for one year, the results of less than two months on the shutdown, the reason is the validity of the bill, to pay the phone to activate. Later, I just keep on going, like a snowball rolling the bigger ... Not only did not save the phone bill, but every month desperately to find ways to spend.　　"Shenzhou line," said Mr. Chen.　　There are users to take the method is 10 yuan each time, 15 yuan to pay charges, to avoid being more "swallow money", but the validity period is shorter, only more than 10 days, therefore, almost every month can not avoid the plight of downtime.　　For a long time, the majority of consumers believe that this provision is "overlord clause", there are users around the company to sue mobile companies this provision "illegal", but difficult to win. But this time, Liu Shutei found that at least mobile companies "must be in Default": "China Mobile and I signed the" Business acceptance list, there is no ' validity of the term ' this provision of restrictions, signed a service contract did not inform me of the relevant provisions. Also, before and after the suspension of service, did not give me any notice that the suspension of service, this is not a breach of contract? "Therefore, Liu Shutei that the mobile company" without justification, unilaterally suspend the provision of services, violatingContract, constitute a contract breach ", so that China Mobile Xuzhou branch to the court. Move Settings "validity" default? The case is held in the Xuzhou Quanshan District People's court in Jiangsu province.　　Liu Shutei's lawsuit request is the court decree China Mobile "cancels the bill of fare validity system", restores own mobile phone card service, continues to fulfill the contract content. The plaintiff said: "The number has been opened the ' monthly minimum consumption package ', plus the ' duration of the bill ' constraints, constitutes a double limit, violating the relevant legal provisions. And without the consent of the consumer, the mobile company unilaterally suspend the provision of services, breach of contract. Therefore, China Mobile company violates the telecommunication Regulations, the Consumer protection law, the contract law and other relevant regulations.　　"And the defense lawyers believe that mobile phone recharge invoices marked" The validity of the Bill "clause, the shop notice also wrote this article," in the cards usually staff will make a prompt to inform, the General people know. " "But we disagree with the legality and relevance of the defendant's shop announcement, and according to article 24th of the Consumer Rights Protection Act, the contents of the operator are not fair or unreasonable to the consumer in the form of contract, notice, statement, shop notice, etc. In accordance with the provisions of article fifth of the contract of Access Agreement, the service commitment made by the mobile Company shall be the supplemental agreement of this Agreement. The so-called service commitment, should be a guarantee to customers. The defendant's term of validity is clearly a restriction on consumer rights, not a service commitment, a supplemental agreement that is not a contract, and is not related to the breach of contract.　　"Plaintiff agent, University of Mining Students Legal Aid Center director Wang Dongyao said.　　The plaintiff believes that the "phone recharge receipt" on the "charge period" setting, is a unilateral ex post facto informed, according to China's "Consumer Protection Law", "contract law" provisions, "infringement of the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, therefore, the shop in the unfair, unreasonable related to inform the money, is invalid to inform." The original Ministry of Information industry, "on the regulation of telecommunications Services Agreement on issues related to the notice 6th" stipulates: "Telecommunications business operators in the contract by the written form or mass media mode of public service commitment, automatically become part of the telecommunications service agreement, but the obligations set for the user, without the user's consent, shall not be an integral part of the service agreement. The term "validity period" is clearly a restriction on consumers ' enjoyment of service and freedom of consumption, which is essentially compulsory consumption and objectively increases the burden of our clients.　　"Wang Dongyao said.　　However, the plaintiff can not provide the current prepaid invoice, therefore, the defendant's lawyers believe that China Mobile in the processing of the business has exercised the obligation to inform, and to provide other people's recharge invoices as auxiliary card, this evidence has not been adopted by the court. For the plaintiff's "business acceptance contract" before the "pay charges" workflow, the defense lawyer objected: "The two are concurrent." "" This statement is clearly contrary to the actual situation, handled by China Mobile Company CommunicationsThe consumer of the business must know that the operation process is in order and cannot be carried out simultaneously.　　"Wang Dongyao said.　　Subsequently, the defendant proposed that the validity of the bill is not "dead gate", can continue to recharge, edit service message sent to 10086, was extended, in fact, this is the current number of mobile users "open secret." "But these so-called relief measures are not related to whether the defendant constitutes a contract breach." Moreover, the extension of the validity period is not indefinite extension, this ' relief measures ', still is the responsibility to our client, pushed to many use mobile services of the vast number of consumers.　　"Wang Dongyao said. Can you set the "valid" defendant? China Mobile Xuzhou Branch Lawyers cited the relevant cases of jurisprudence, such as the 2009 Beijing elderly Zhu Fuxiang sued Beijing Mobile Company for two years, and finally rejected the ruling. The reason for the court's dismissal was that "the original claim was not within the scope of civil action".　　At the same time, lawyers in the "industry practice" and the telecommunications Regulations of the relevant provisions, that "set the duration of telephone calls" is legal. "Does ' industry practice ' override the laws of the Consumer Protection Act and the contract law?" This reminds me of the abolition of the "two-way charge" of mobile phones. "Wang Dongyao said," trading habits, industry practices can not violate the basic principles of the law, the establishment of the validity of the bill is against the law of honesty and credit, fairness and justice, is a weak position of consumers unfair, unreasonable provisions, belong to the mandatory consumption. "The defendant lawyer also based on the relevant law, that the mobile phone number is" state limited resources, consumers long-term possession of waste of resources. But Wang Dongyao said: "The number of the attribution of the case of the contract dispute, the ' validity ' of the provisions of the abolition of the association. "" The validity of the set, whether in the contract before the signing, or after the signing, are unreasonable. Our client's package has a monthly minimum consumption, and then set the duration of the charge, is a double limit to consumers, its purpose is not to solve the number of resource constraints, but in order to force our clients to buy more benefits.　　"Wang Dongyao said. At the same time, the plaintiff believes that mobile companies can not be "operating costs" as the reason, unilaterally set the duration of the bill, violating the contract, violating the legitimate interests of consumers. "Moreover, the operation of the cost of the mobile company is not related to the contract default, whether it is necessary to make up the cost of our client's number to cover costs, should be at the time of contract, in the contract expressly agreed."　　"Wang Dongyao said. In the first session, the plaintiff on the court's "business acceptance list" to prove that the plaintiff and the defendant established a contract relationship and other relevant evidence, the court was identified as valid evidence. In the Court's opinion, the defendant's lawyer cited as evidence of other people's invoices, the relevant jurisprudence "and the case does not have a connection", not recognized.　　The Court mediation proposal proposed by the judge, because the plaintiff insists on repealing "validity" and the defendant opinion cannot unify, but cannot reach the mediation. "I'm not just trying to get back more than 10 bucks, but more important.is to uphold the legitimate rights of myself and more consumers. We challenge this regulation of mobile companies because it is not in the interests of consumers and does not conform to the principles of fairness and fairness.　　"Liu Shutei said. Due to lack of evidence on the part of the mobile company, the defendant's agent applied to the court for an "extension of evidence", and the presiding judge agreed to testify within 5th, and the case was postponed. The case has not yet reopened, this newspaper will continue to pay attention.