Key points Analysis series (2) of the Judicial Interpretation of Civil Disputes over Prepaid Consumption: Analysis of the reasons for differences between the draft and the formal provisions

In the first article of the series, "Analysis Series of Key Points of Judicial Interpretation of Prepaid Consumption Civil Disputes (I) : Analysis of Differences between the Soliciting Draft and the formal provisions", we showed the similarities and differences between the Interpretation (Soliciting Draft) and the Interpretation in detail, and sorted out and briefly commented on each article. This is the second in a series of articles that will discuss the similarities and differences, and in particular the possible reasons behind the differences.

We need to first extract some of the underlying logic of the Supreme Court's drafting of the Interpretation from the public information on the Internet as the main basis for this discussion. First, we must implement the decisions and arrangements of the CPC Central Committee. The SPC adhered to the implementation of the CPC Central Committee's decision-making and deployment on boosting consumption, promoting investment, and expanding domestic demand, helping to form a virtuous circle of mutual promotion of consumption and investment, and promoting the improvement of consumption quality. For example, the report of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China pointed out that we should strive to expand domestic demand, enhance the basic role of consumption in economic development and the key role of investment in optimizing the supply structure. The Third Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee proposed to improve the mechanism for stimulating the vitality of social capital investment and promoting the landing of investment, and improve the long-term mechanism for expanding consumption. The Central Economic Work Conference in 2024 will "vigorously boost consumption, improve investment efficiency, and expand domestic demand in an all-round way" as the key task of this year. Second, we must follow the spirit and intent of relevant legislation. The Supreme People's Court adheres to the spirit of legislation, follows the intent of legislation, and ensures that the Interpretation conforms to the purposes and purposes of relevant legislation. According to the author's preliminary search, the legislation related to prepaid consumption at the national level mainly includes: 1) Article 53 of the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests of the People's Republic of China (revised in 2013) [1]; 2) Articles 21 and 22 of the Implementing Regulations of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests (Decree No. 778 of The State Council) [2]; 3) Administrative Measures for Single-Purpose Commercial Prepaid Cards (Trial) (revised in 2016). The relevant legislation at the local level will not be included in the scope of this discussion. Third, we must solve the pain points and problems of the people. The Supreme People's Court adheres to the problem-oriented approach to solve the problems of "rolling money and running away", "overbearing clause", and non-refundability of payments. On March 8, 2025, the Supreme People's Court proposed in the work report of the National Two sessions: judicial protection of "assured purchase", legal regulation of "professional shutters", "professional debt holders" and other chaos, to maintain market order. On March 9, Southern Metropolis Daily published an interview with He Xiaorong, vice president of the Supreme People's Court: In recent years, from the perspective of judicial practice, the number of prepaid consumer dispute cases accepted by the people's Court has been rising rapidly. If the operator runs away with the money, after the consumer sues the people's court, it is likely to face problems such as finding people is not easy and finding stores is more difficult. In recent years, the prepaid consumer market has also appeared the phenomenon of "professional shutters" and "debt bearers" to help operators escape debt. The people's courts punish the behavior of the business operators by adjudicating the business operators according to law, helping the debt evaders to bear civil liability for compensation, criminal liability, etc., so as to maintain market order and protect the rights and interests of consumers. Fourth, we need to strike a balance between the rights and responsibilities of relevant parties. The SPC insists on correctly handling the relationship between protecting the legitimate rights and interests of consumers and promoting sustainable and healthy economic development, protecting the freedom of contract and realizing the fairness of contract, strengthening the relationship between protecting rights and promoting honesty and trustworthiness, and the relationship between judicial adjudication and administrative supervision.

This discussion will be based on the provisions of the Interpretation, interspersed with the provisions of the consultation draft. In order to make a more intuitive presentation, we will discuss each item on the basis of classification.

PART.01The "Interpretation" fully retains the content of the draft for comments

The parties concerned have no disagreement on the contents of such clauses and can fully reach a consensus. The details include:Article 8 Where there are more than two interpretations of a contract, an interpretation that is favorable to the consumer shall be provided.

Article10(1)[Validity of prepaid consumption contracts concluded by persons without capacity for civil conduct] Where a person with no capacity for civil conduct concludes a contract with a business operator and makes payment, the court supports the legal representative's request for confirmation that the contract is invalid and the business operator returns the advance payment.

Article16[Determination of refund interest rate] This article provides that there is an agreement on the refund interest rate according to the agreement, there is no agreement or the agreement is unclear, and the refund reasons are different treatment: If the refund is due to the reasons of the operator, the interest is calculated according to the one-year loan interest rate at the time of the establishment of the contract; If the refund is due to consumer reasons, the interest shall be calculated according to the one-year fixed deposit interest rate when the contract is established. In addition, if the advance payment has been transferred to the supervised account has a higher yield, the refund rate is calculated at the actual interest rate.

Article17[Where the consumer requests the return of the advance payment] The interest on the advance payment shall be calculated from the time when the contract is terminated, confirmed to be invalid, revoked or determined to have no effect. If the parties have an agreement more favorable to consumers or the law provides otherwise, the case shall be handled in accordance with the agreement between the parties or the law.

Article18(1)[Calculation of the consumed price when the refund is not due to consumer reasons] This article stipulates that if the advance payment is returned for non-consumer reasons, the price of the goods or services that have been redeemed is calculated according to the discounted price or preferential ratio, so that the remaining price of the consumer will be higher than the remaining price calculated according to the price before the discount, more protection of the interests of consumers.

Article 25[The responsibility of the operator to provide evidence of control] usually the operator controls the text of the prepaid consumption contract or records the consumption content, frequency, amount and balance of the prepaid payment, etc., and the consumer is faced with the problem of "difficult to prove". This article presumes that if the operator controls the evidence and refuses to submit the evidence without valid reasons, the court will determine the facts according to the consumer's claim and comply with the evidence rules of civil litigation.

PART.02The "Interpretation" only changes the text of the draft for comments

The parties concerned have no substantive differences on the contents of these terms, and the text is modified to reflect the basic jurisprudence or to make the written expression more clear, accurate, complete and standardized. The details include:

Article1[Scope of Application of this Interpretation] The Interpretation changes "education and training" to "training" in order to avoid misunderstanding. For example, is "vocational training" "educational training"? Can the Interpretation be applied? At the same time, the new elderly care and tourism, two areas of living consumption with a high incidence of civil disputes, meet the requirements of solving the pain points and problems of the people. In addition, the Supreme People's Court clarified in the press release that in addition to the clearly listed areas of living consumption, prepaid consumption disputes in the areas of living consumption such as housekeeping, health care, and childcare are also applicable to the Interpretation, but the Interpretation is not applicable to consumers who receive goods or services in one time after payment.

Article3[Guardian or ward as plaintiff] This article clarifies the basis for the different right of action of the guardian and ward. Compared with the general provisions of the draft for comments, the "Interpretation" separates the lawsuit of contract and the lawsuit of infringement, and matches that the guardian as a party to the contract and the ward as a party whose rights and interests have been damaged have the right to file a civil lawsuit in their own name, which not only conforms to the law, but also clarifies the legal right of the ward from the judicial level, and enhances the protection of consumers' rights and interests.

Article5[Subject of Responsibility in the Commercial franchise System] This article clarifies the specific circumstances in which the franchisor and the franchisee bear civil liability to the consumer under the franchise scenario. A more obvious change is that the Interpretation has amended "consumers and franchisors enter into contracts" in the draft for comment to "franchisors and consumers enter into contracts". The author speculates that the consumer, as a passive party in this scenario, often cannot take the initiative to choose whether to enter into contracts with franchisors or franchisees.

Article9[Invalidity of Standard Terms] This article clarifies 7 situations (including underwritten clauses) in which prepaid consumer contracts are invalid, and the Interpretation only expands the situation in item (6) from "excluding the jurisdiction of the court of the consumer's residence" to "the agreed method of dispute resolution is unreasonable", such as some prepaid consumer contracts stipulating arbitration jurisdiction. But the minimum fee for arbitration is much higher than the upfront payment paid by consumers. This article increases the protection of consumers' claims of contract invalidity, which is conducive to balancing the equal relationship between consumers and business operators.

Article10(2)[The effect of limiting the capacity for civil conduct to conclude a prepaid consumption contract] This article only expands the "amount of advance payment" in the proviso part of the draft for comments to "contract contents such as the amount of advance payment", mainly in order to express the completeness and standardization, and can also increase the scope of application of the proviso to a certain extent, but the author believes that the extent is limited.

Article11(1)[Effectiveness of the transfer of claims of prepaid consumer contracts] This clause stipulates that the transfer of prepaid cards by consumers only needs to notify the operator that it will be effective to the operator, and the Interpretation only adjusts the draft for comments "after the transfer of claims becomes effective to the operator" to "after the transfer of claims becomes effective to the operator", this change is to express the completeness and standardization.

Article12[Consumer's right to refuse business operator's unilateral modification of the contract] Compared with the draft for comments, this article only adds the content that the business operator shall bear the liability for breach of contract in case of unilateral breach of contract, and the author believes that this amendment is to maintain the consistency with the legislation and logical extension.

Article13(2)[Where a consumer terminates a contract for reasonable reasons]the consumer shall have the right to terminate the contract according to law if the continued performance of the contract is obviously unfair to the consumer due to objective reasons such as his health. Compared with the draft for comments, only the words "prepaid consumption" are added in front of the contract, mainly in order to express the accuracy and standardization.

Article15(1)[The Operator's responsibility to return the principal of the advance payment and pay interest] This article stipulates that the balance of the advance payment after deducting the price of the goods or services that have been redeemed shall be the principal of the advance payment that should be returned. The provisions of the "Interpretation" are more accurate, avoid the ambiguity that may be caused by the provisions of the draft for comments, and also lay the foundation for the interpretation of the prepayment interest.

Article26[Scope of prepaid cards] This article only defines "prepaid card" as "single-purpose commercial prepaid card" on the basis of the exposure draft, mainly in order to express more specific and clear. In addition, it is also stipulated that disputes related to multi-purpose prepaid cards shall not apply to this Interpretation.

Article27[Supplementary Provisions] This article clarifies that the Interpretation shall come into force on May 1, 2025 and is a legislative technique.

PART.03The "Interpretation" makes substantive amendments to the draft for comments

The relevant parties of this kind of clause have relatively big differences on the content of the clause, but after several rounds of discussion and modification, they can reach a consensus. The details include:

Article2[Cardholder or Consumer as plaintiff's burden of proof] This article makes it clear that if the cardholder or consumer as plaintiff sues the court to require the operator to bear civil liability, the plaintiff's burden of proof is to provide preliminary evidence when the court examines whether to accept the case. Compared with the draft of "providing evidence to prove", it reduces the difficulty of the plaintiff's proof, and is a "form embodiment" of the court's protection of consumers' legal right to appeal. It remains to be seen how courts navigate the delicate relationship between "prima facie evidence" and "evidence."

Article4[Nominal operators as the subject of responsibility] This article clarifies that the circumstances under which the nominal operators bear responsibility only include "allowing others to use their business license or name to enter into contracts", and deletes the situation in the draft for comments that "other actions of the nominal operators cause consumers to have reason to believe that they are bound by prepaid consumption contracts". The reason is that one is to prevent the generalization of the situation in which the nominal operator assumes responsibility, and the other is to reduce the difficulty of administrative law enforcement and judicial judgment. It is indeed difficult to grasp what is "other behavior" in practice, and it is more difficult to form a unified scale.

Article6[Mall venue lessor as the subject of responsibility] The purpose of this article is to solve the problem of who should take responsibility after the leasing mall venue operator receives the payment "run away", but the "Interpretation" makes it clear that the lessor of mall venue only "does not require the leasing mall venue operator to provide business qualification certificate, business license, In the single case of "causing unqualified operators to lease their venues to collect advance payment from consumers and cause losses to consumers", it is necessary to bear civil liability to consumers according to their faults, and deleted the situation in the draft for comments that the lessor of the shopping mall venue and the operator of the leased venue bear joint and several liability to consumers. The author believes that it is mainly in order to balance the relationship between protecting the legitimate rights and interests of consumers and promoting the sustainable and healthy development of the economy, but even though the liability of the lessor of the shopping mall space has been limited to the obligation of formal review and the liability of fault, the Supreme People's Court still emphasizes that when applying this article, "it should be strictly in accordance with the law to avoid improperly increasing the liability of the lessor of the shopping mall space." It can be seen that the intensity of the game behind the relevant parties.

Article7[Liquidation obligator as the subject of responsibility] This article clarifies the obligation of business operators to liquidate in a timely manner according to law and the circumstances under which the liquidation obligator of business operators should bear civil liability to consumers. Compared with the draft for comments, the first is to delete the obligation of operators to clean up assets and liabilities in a timely manner and notify consumers to return advance payments in case of poor management, mainly in order to protect operators with business difficulties and avoid a bad economy. The second is to delete the clause that the third party who helps the operator to evade the debt should bear joint and several liabilities to the consumer, and the reason analysis is incorporated into the fourth point below, no more details.

Article10(3)[The Right of the Business Operator to claim deduction in case the Contract is invalid] This article provides that after the contract is invalid, the business operator has the right to deduct from the returned advance payment the price of the goods or services that have been redeemed, with respect to the exception of not deducting the part of the book, The Interpretation only retains item (1) in the draft for comments "Operators provide online payment games and other services to minors in violation of legal provisions", Subparagraph (2) "A business operator provides services to a person without capacity for civil conduct" and subparagraph (3) "The part that the amount of the price of a business operator providing services to a person with limited capacity for civil conduct is not compatible with the age and intelligence of the person with limited capacity for civil conduct" are deleted. The author believes that there is a logical conflict between the contents of items (2) and (3) of the draft and the overall contents of paragraph 3; In addition, the deletion of these two provisions can reduce the losses of operators to a certain extent. Although the other party to the contract is a person without or with limited capacity for civil conduct, the operator has paid for the goods or provided services, should be allowed to deduct the return of the advance payment, which is also in line with the principle of fairness and justice of the civil law.

Article11(2)[Situations in which the transfer of claims under Prepaid consumer Contracts is not effective] This clause is a new addition to the Interpretation, which stipulates the circumstances in which the transfer of claims under contracts is invalid to the business operator, regulates the abuse of rights of consumers in the subdivision scenario where the business operator provides unlimited services to the consumer, and increases the protection of the business operator. It conforms to the principle of honesty and credit of civil law, and better balances the protection of the rights of consumers and operators.

Article13(1)[Consumer's right to Rescind a prepaid consumption contract] This clause stipulates four circumstances under which a consumer has the right to rescind a contract (including the underpayment clause). Among them, the impact of the operator's "relocation" on consumers' acceptance of goods or services has risen from "inconvenience" in the draft for comments to "obvious inconvenience", which increases the difficulty of consumers' proof, mainly in order to maintain the stability of the contract. Under the background of economic downturn, a business operator's change of business site is objective and reasonable, and there is no obvious inconvenience to consumers, shall not oppose the validity of the contract. In addition, item (3) of the situation in the draft for comments has been deleted, "The change of service personnel and other actions cause consumers to lose trust in the personal, professional and other services provided by the operator", mainly because the consumption contract is fundamentally different from the entrustment contract with strong personal attributes, and the specific service provider is not a party to the consumption contract. Its change should not be a legitimate ground against the validity of the contract. Overall, the relationship between consumers' right to rescind contracts and operators' right to stable management has been fine-tuned.

Article14[Consumers have no reason to refund seven days]The first paragraph of this article stipulates that the consumer has the right to request the operator to return the principal of the advance payment within seven days from the date of payment, but the Interpretation has abandoned the provision of the comment draft "the consumer pays the advance payment after fully understanding the information of the product or service". Instead, the consumer has obtained the same goods or services from the "operator" or "other operator" when entering into a prepaid consumption contract. The author believes that the "Interpretation" alleviates the obligation of business operators to fully disclose the information of goods or services to consumers, which is beneficial to business operators. However, from an objective and neutral point of view, whether "obtained the same goods or services from the operator or other operators" is indeed easier to judge and not easy to cause disputes than whether "fully understand the information of the goods or services". The second paragraph of this article allows the parties to make a more favorable agreement on the consumer's refund without reason, and breaks the restriction of "contractual agreement" in the draft for comments, which is conducive to consumers. Overall, the clause adjusts the delicate relationship between protecting consumers' right to know and protecting operators' right to operate independently, and also takes into account the difficulty of law enforcement and justice.

Article15(2)[Parties' Liability for compensation for losses] This article provides for the compensation of reasonable expenses paid by the parties and other losses in the case of the termination of the prepaid consumption contract, and clarifies that the prepayment commission paid by the operator to employees and other personnel does not belong to the reasonable expenses that should be compensated by the consumer. However, it remains to be seen what is a "reasonable cost". On the basis of the draft for comment, the Interpretation stipulates that if the contract is terminated due to force majeure or changes in circumstances, the parties shall not be liable for compensation. This amendment is in line with the basic legal principles of the contract law on force majeure and change of circumstances.

Article18(2)[Calculation of the consumed price when refunds are not due to consumer reasons] This article provides that the parties have made a more favorable agreement on the discount of goods or services that have been redeemed, in accordance with the agreement. The "agreement of the parties" breaks through the "agreement on prepaid consumption contracts" in the draft for comments, and expands the protection of consumer rights.

Article19[Calculation of the consumed price when refunded for consumer reasons] This article stipulates that the calculation of the consumed price according to the "original contract price" in the draft for comments is changed to the calculation of the "price before the discount", and the rest of the content is exactly the same. It is more difficult to answer the difference between "the original price agreed in the contract" and "the price before the discount". I guess it may be because in real life there may not be "the original price agreed on by the contract", but it must be possible to calculate the "price before the discount". No matter what the standard is calculated, the operator will get more than the consumption price calculated according to the discount price or preferential proportion, which is the protection of the operator.

Article20[Consumer's liability to pay the price is limited to the advance payment] This article is somewhat similar to the limited liability of shareholders, no matter which method is used to calculate the amount consumed by discount price, preferential proportion, price before discount, as long as the amount consumed is less than the balance of the advance payment, the operator shall return to the consumer; If the amount consumed is greater than the balance of the advance payment, the consumer shall be limited to the advance payment already made and shall not be liable for making up the difference. The only difference between the content of the "Interpretation" and the draft for comments is the difference between the "original contract price" and the "price before discount", the reasons have been explained above, and will not be repeated.

Article21[Treatment of Goods or Services that have been donated] This article requires the court to consider multiple factors to comprehensively determine whether to support the business operator's request that the consumer return or discount the goods or services that have been donated. The draft for comments holds negative opinions on this issue in principle, but the exceptions include: the value of the goods or services presented is high, the non-return or discount compensation is obviously unfair to the operator, or the contract has otherwise agreed. The "Interpretation" is much more moderate and flexible than the provisions of the draft for comments, avoiding the difficult problem of how to coordinate the relationship between consumers and operators, but increasing the difficulty of the court's handling of cases, which is an expedient measure after the game.

Article22[Refund of Time card] This article provides that the operator provides time card to the consumer, after the contract is terminated, the consumer requests to calculate the advance payment that should be returned according to the proportion of the remaining period and the whole period, the court shall support. Compared with the draft for comments, the provision that the contract is "confirmed to be invalid, revoked or determined to have no effect" is deleted, which is in line with the basic principle of contract law. At the same time, the article also stipulates that consumers for their own reasons do not require operators to provide services within the contractual performance period, the court does not support the consumer's request to return the advance payment, in line with the timing card to pay attention to the consumption period, do not focus on the number of consumption industry practice, but also inform consumers to exercise their rights and interests in a timely manner, with your own reasons for not exercising the expired wait. In addition, compared with the draft for comments, the Interpretation adds a provision that the operator has stopped providing goods or services before the termination of the prepaid consumption contract, and the consumer requests that the prepaid payment should be returned based on the proportion of the remaining performance period and the total performance period after the operator stops providing goods or services, the people's court shall support.

Article23[The responsibility of operators for defrauding consumers]Where a business operator terminates its business after receiving advance payment, fails to pay for goods or provide services as agreed, and maliciously evades consumers from applying for a refund,it shall be deemed to have defrauded consumers and shall be liable for punitive damages. If a crime is suspected, the court will transfer the case to the public security for criminal responsibility. This article is to seriously hold operators accountable and combat and curb the behavior of "rolling money away", but the content of the draft has changed greatly, deleting the specific circumstances that operators constitute fraud: by (1) fabricating or exaggerating the quality and function of goods, the content and efficacy of services; (2) false discounts, price reductions, price comparisons, etc. (4) concealing the fact that it plans to terminate business operations or cannot operate normally, misleading or inducing consumers to make prepayment consumption. The author believes that there are two reasons: First, the way to simplify the complicated is more conducive to the administrative and judicial organs to quickly find out the facts and make decisions. Second, the deletion of these specific circumstances does not substantively affect the legal liability of operators to bear punitive damages according to law.

Article24[Responsibility of Operators to provide prepaid card activation and other services] This article stipulates that for prepaid cards with balances (named), the court shall support consumers' requests for services such as activation, card replacement, loss reporting, and replacement, but deletes the comment draft that operators can charge service costs and have the responsibility to prove their costs. And if the charge is higher than the cost charge, the consumer shall be returned to the higher part of the charge. The author believes that the main reason for the deletion is that it is difficult for the administrative and judicial authorities to find out the reasonable cost through the evidence provided by the operator. It remains to be seen how this will be handled in practice.

PART.04The Interpretation does not reserve the content of the draft for comments

Such clauses mainly include two situations: First, the relevant parties have principled differences on the contents, and it is still difficult to reach an agreement despite full communication and repeated amendments; Second, the relevant content is not important enough or there are contradictions and conflicts in the whole, which is not suitable for inclusion in the Interpretation. The details include:The second paragraph of Article 7 [Helping debt evaders as the subject of responsibility] This article was originally used to punish the behavior of "professional store shutters" and "debt bearers" who help operators evade debts, and clearly stipulates that the third party who helps operators evade debts should bear joint and several liability for consumers. As for the reasons for its deletion, the author believes that the main reason is that the judicial practice has dealt with it, and the time for judicial interpretation to make a clear provision is not mature. The basis is as follows: First, in the typical case 5 "Wang v. Xue Liquidation Liability Dispute case" and case 6 "Zheng Mushun and other fraud case" released together with the "Explanation", the "professional store closers" bear civil liability or criminal liability to consumers. Second, Vice President He Xiaorong mentioned when answering reporters' questions that in the case of "professional store closers" or "debt bearers" helping operators to roll money and run away, consumers have the right to request "professional store closers" or "debt bearers" to assume responsibility, and have the right to request the original operators to assume responsibility. Here also remind the majority of operators: "debtor" can not carry the debt, "debt evaders" can not escape the net.

Article18[Treatment of the remaining advance payment at the end of the contract performance period] In real life, prepaid consumer contracts often occur at the end of the performance period but the balance of the advance payment, extending the performance period or returning the advance payment will be the only option. There is an agreement, the agreement is handled, there is no dispute. If there is no agreement or the agreement is unclear, the court needs to make a judgment based on factors such as the fault of the parties and the realistic feasibility of continuing to perform the contract, which is really difficult to deal with, and the practicality and effect are difficult to guarantee. In addition, if the consumer does not consume all the advance payment before the expiration of the performance period of the prepaid consumption contract as agreed, the operator may claim compensation from the consumer if the loss is caused by extending the performance period of the contract or returning the remaining advance payment. This provision contradicts the current legislative tendency to protect the rights and interests of consumers and boost residents' consumption. No reservation is also in line with the basic principles of fairness and justice in the civil law. How to deal with such problems in judicial practice remains to be further observed.

Article21(2)[Calculating the consumed price at cost price when refunds are not due to consumer reasons] This article stipulates that when the court calculates the price of goods or services that the operator has redeemed to the consumer at a discounted price or preferential ratio, if the consumed price is lower than the operator's cost, the court may support the operator's claim of calculating the consumed price at cost price. The situation of operators operating below the cost price is very likely to exist in the fierce competition in the consumer market, and this article has a certain rationality. The author guessed that the reason for not reserving is that it is difficult for the administrative organs and courts to judge the authenticity and validity of the evidence that the operator proves its cost price.

Article24[Treatment of the remaining gift consumption amount, etc.] This article provides that after the prepaid consumption contract is terminated, invalid, revoked or determined to be invalid, the agreed gift of goods, services or consumption amount is not delivered or consumed in full, the court shall support the operator's claim to no longer assume the obligation of giving the remaining goods, services or consumption amount. The author thinks that this article conforms to the public order and good customs, and has a certain rationality. The main reason for not reserving it is the insufficient importance and necessity.

Article29[Responsibility to repay consumer loans] The provisions of this article have three meanings: First, the court should support consumers in specific circumstances to repay only the principal and interest of the loan within the scope of the price of the goods or services that have been paid, including: (1) the lender and the operator maliciously collude to extract advance payments from consumers and damage the legitimate rights and interests of consumers; (2) When entering into the loan contract, the lender knew or should have known that the operator did not have the ability to perform the contract or did not examine the operator's ability to perform the contract, but still made loans to consumers for the payment of advances, and the operator neither paid the goods or provided services in accordance with the agreement after receiving the advances, nor maliciously evaded consumers from applying for refunds. Second, if the lender reviews the performance ability of the operator and makes a loan based on the judgment of the general operator, it can resist the consumer's request in the first meaning above. Third, the court should support the lender's claim that the operator should repay the principal and interest of the loan that the consumer has not repaid. Prepayment consumer nested (online) consumer loan in the industry is a common phenomenon and chaos, this article can better balance and deal with the relationship between lenders, operators, consumers. However, it was not reserved, and the author speculated that the voice of the two industries of consumption and consumption of gold was too large and was temporarily shelved.

Article32(2)[Supplementary Provisions - Retroactivity] This article provides that the Interpretation applies to civil cases that have not been finalized after the implementation of this Interpretation, but does not apply to civil cases that have been finalized before the implementation of this Interpretation, the parties apply for a retrial, or the court decides to retrial. The author believes that the reason for not reserving is a technical treatment to balance legal stability and judicial adaptability.

This paper has completed the analysis and discussion of the possible reasons behind the changes in the Interpretation (Draft for Comment) and the officially promulgated Interpretation. In view of the professionalism and complexity of judicial interpretation research, if there are omissions or inadequacies, academic colleagues and practical experts are invited to correct them. If you want to further explore the normative effect of the Interpretation on the allocation of rights and obligations of the subject of the prepaid consumption legal relationship, please stay tuned to the subsequent chapters of this series of studies.

Footnote:

[1] Article53 Where a business operator provides a commodity or service in the form of an advance payment, it shall do so in accordance with the contract. If the contract is not provided, it shall perform the contract or refund the advance payment as required by the consumer; It shall bear the interest on the advance payment and reasonable expenses that the consumer must pay.

[2] Article21 Where a business operator decides to close down or relocate a service site, it shall announce the effective contact information of the business operator and other information in a prominent position on its business site, website, or home page of its online shop 30 days in advance. Article22 Where a business operator provides a commodity or service in the form of payment in advance, it shall conclude a written contract with a consumer, specifying the specific contents of the commodity or service, the price or fee, the method of refund of the advance payment, the liability for breach of contract, etc.

After receiving advance payment, a business operator shall provide goods or services in accordance with the agreement with the consumer and shall not reduce the quality of the goods or services or arbitrarily increase the price. Where a business operator fails to provide a commodity or service in accordance with the contract, it shall perform the contract or refund the advance payment at the request of the consumer. Where a business operator has major operational risks that may affect the normal provision of commodities or services by the business operator in accordance with the contract or trading practices, it shall stop collecting advance payments. Where a business operator decides to suspend operations or relocate a service site, it shall inform consumers in advance and fulfill the obligations provided for in Article 21 of these Regulations. A consumer shall, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the State or the contract, have the right to request the business operator to continue to perform its obligation to provide goods or services, or to request the return of the balance of the unconsumed advance payment.