Student sues global IELTS for shoddy fraud claim

Immigration Exam Student v. Global IELTS School says the plaintiff failed the exam is the cause of their own reasons and training does not agree with the tuition fee to emigrate overseas Mr. Ren participated in the three immigration IELTS test, but all is "drubbing", he thinks is the IELTS training School "cheat" teaching to delay. Mr. Ren will sue the Dongcheng District Global IELTS Training School to the court for 40,000 yuan of compensation.　　This morning, the case was heard in the Dongcheng court.　　As immigration is required, Mr. Ren, who has entered the first few sessions, needs to be trained in immigration (class G) English courses. July 2007, Mr. Ren through the telephone to Beijing Dongcheng District, the Global IELTS Training School Training Course consultation, the latter made clear that there are classes for the G class, is half a year closed class.　　But this class is with the academic class and immigrant class (Class A) mixed together to study, the school promised that the six-year closed class course will involve the immigrant class problem solving skills and vocabulary, learned a class can test G class. After the above commitment, Mr. Ren paid 19800 yuan tuition fees.　　At the end of the course, Mr. Ren took 3 IELTS tests. He thought he had been "delayed" by the school's false promises.　　Schools in the knowledge of academic and immigration courses are different, but in consultation, deliberately conceal the truth, make false statements, induce Mr. Ren to make a wrong choice. At the same time, the school has serious breach of contract and serious fraud in the process of performance.　　The training courses agreed in the contract, such as reading advanced, listening level, IELTS interview, IELTS base section test, IELTS full true simulation test, are not implemented.　　There is a serious problem in the teaching quality, school management and so on, the IELTS writing course teachers are lazy, late, early leave total 310 minutes, should be awarded the course has not been completed, to the end of 5 courses have not been awarded.　　Mr. Ren sued the schools to give themselves "double compensation" in every aspect: refund the total tuition fee of 19800 yuan and compensate for the loss of 19800 yuan, compensation for 3 examinations cost 4350 yuan, and double compensation 4350 yuan, in addition to the demand for mental loss and other compensation, the amount amounted to 44540.　　The school said the university argued that with Mr. Ren's agreement signed, schools, as promised full compliance with obligations.　　On September 1, 2008, the BoE conducted a survey on both sides of the dispute, concluding that the school had organized two fewer examinations, but this was cancelled at the request of the majority of students who were unwilling to take the examination.　　Some teachers have been late, but the late teacher has given the students a lesson. The school believes that Mr Ren's failure to pass the IELTS test is due to his own cause, without any causal relationship with the training.　　The Court was therefore requested to dismiss Mr. Ren's claim.　　　This morning, Mr. Ren, who personally attended the lawsuit, did not reach a conciliation agreement with the training school, and the case will be pronounced. Chinese court, Mr. Ren because immigrants need to accept immigration (class G) English course training, hence participated in Beijing Dongcheng District Global IELTS Training School held a training course, but its claim to enter the school but found that the original promise of "famous teacher"became a graduate student in the school, promised to provide free textbooks are all not used, the teacher asked students to purchase textbooks, Mr. Ren thought that the school of fraud seriously violated their legitimate rights and interests, the school sued the court, this morning, Beijing Dongcheng District People's court hearing the case. The plaintiff said: The defendant made it clear that there were courses for immigrants, a six-year closed class, an academic class (Class A) and a mixture of immigrants to study, and that the class could test academic and immigrant classes. The defendant also promised that the course of the six-year closed class would involve the problem-solving skills and vocabulary used in immigrant courses. After receiving the above commitment, the plaintiff signed an agreement with the defendant on July 20, 2007 and paid 19800 yuan for the tuition. At the end of the course, the plaintiff took 3 IELTS tests and failed. The main reason is that the contents of the training courses provided by the defendants are significantly different from those related to the reading and writing involved in the immigration examinations attended by the plaintiff. Mr. Ren said that the defendants had not implemented the training courses agreed upon in the contract, such as reading advanced, listening level, IELTS interview, IELTS base section test, IELTS full true mock test, etc. In the admissions and plaintiff consultation, the defendants pledged to speak in small classes, 12 per class, but in fact, up to 20 people per class. In the admission and plaintiff consultation, the defendants pledged to block classes for half a year, with 30 to 35 classes per class, but the actual performance of each class is about 60 people. Because of the serious supernumerary, the teaching environment and learning effect are very poor. The defendant promised to guarantee the quality of teaching and the strict management system of the school, but in fact the defendant's listening teacher because of the low level of teaching, the content of the lecture did not design IELTS listening, also did not use the teaching materials issued by the accused, IELTS writing course teachers are late, leave leave total 310 minutes, The end of the course agreed between the defendant and some of the trainees is May 23, 2008, but the actual end date is May 15, 2008. As the defendant had not granted 5 courses, unilaterally tore up the contract and terminated the course in advance. Due to fraud and false publicity and serious breach of contract by the defendant, the plaintiff did not learn the English required by the immigration examination, which led to the failure of the plaintiff to pass the examination 3 times. The defendant's behavior seriously violated the plaintiff's legitimate rights and interests, therefore the prosecution request the defendant to refund the full tuition fee 19800 yuan, the compensation plaintiff loses 19 800 yuan, the Compensation plaintiff 3 examination expense 4350 yuan, and doubles the compensation 4350 yuan;　　Refund the plaintiff more than 35 yuan for the cost of teaching materials, compensation for the plaintiff loss of 35 yuan, refund the plaintiff more examination teaching materials fee of 200 yuan, compensation for the plaintiff loss of 200 yuan, compensation for the plaintiff traffic, tardiness, spirit and other costs 1000 yuan, the case of the defendant burden of the lawsuit. The defendant argued: the original, the defendant signed the "Global IELTS closed six-year class agreement" was established legally, valid and completed. The plaintiff's alleged defendant concealed the facts and made false representations when the plaintiff consulted, and the defendant had serious breach of contract and fraudulent acts during the performanceTo be inconsistent with the facts. After the agreement was signed, the defendant fulfilled his obligations as promised. As for the plaintiff, it is true that two examinations should be organized after the end of the course. But the reason is that most of the students come home early after the course, unwilling to take the examination, so the defendant did not organize the exam. After the plaintiff reflected the question to the defendant, the defendant submitted to the plaintiff to organize the examination alone, but the plaintiff said that everyone had left the school, his personal family was not in the exam. September 1, 2008, the Board of Education on the original, the dispute between the defendants conducted a survey, concluded that the defendants had less than two examinations, but this is due to the majority of students reasons. In addition, the individual teachers are late phenomenon. In this respect, the late teacher also gave the students a lesson. The defendant considered that the failure of the plaintiff to pass the IELTS test was due to its own cause and had no causal relationship with the defendant.　　The plaintiff's lawsuit request does not have any factual and the legal basis, requests the people's Court to ascertain the fact, rejects the plaintiff's lawsuit request. The case will be pronounced in a selective sentence.