Chen scanned the code to ride a shared bicycle, and when he rode to a shared bicycle parking spot in Haidian District, Beijing, and was about to close the lock and return the bicycle, the platform prompted that he could not return the bicycle because he was not at the parking point. Chen failed to close the lock and return the car normally after trying, so he returned the car after paying the dispatch fee.

Chen believed that he had parked his bicycle at the bicycle marking parking spot but failed to lock and return the bicycle normally, and that the bicycle operator had failed to provide normal return services, which constituted a breach of contract, so he sued the Beijing Haidian District People's Court. If the bike-sharing operator raises an objection to jurisdiction during the defense period, asserting that the bike-sharing service agreement stipulates a jurisdiction clause, the people's court where the bike-sharing operator is located should be determined as the competent court.

Chen argued that the jurisdiction clause had a significant interest in the consumer, and that the clause was a standard clause, and that the clause should be invalid because the bike-sharing operator failed to draw the attention of the consumer to it in a reasonable manner.

[Court Hearing]

The place where the leased property is used is the place where the contract is performed

According to Article 31 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, if a business operator uses standard clauses to enter into a jurisdiction agreement with a consumer and fails to draw the attention of the consumer to the attention of the consumer in a reasonable manner, the people's court shall support the consumer's claim that the jurisdiction agreement is invalid. In this case, the agreement involved in the case was a standard contract drafted in advance by one of the parties, and although the agreement provided for a jurisdiction clause, the clause was not specifically marked in the agreement to remind consumers of it, and the bike-sharing operator did not provide evidence to prove that it had taken a reasonable approach to remind consumers of the jurisdiction clause when signing the agreement.

Article 19 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that property lease contracts and financial lease contracts shall be performed in the place where the leased property is used. If there is an agreement on the place of performance in the contract, such agreement shall prevail. In this case, Mr. Chen filed a lawsuit on the basis of a dispute over a lease contract, and the cause of action was the leasing and use of shared bicycles, which was a property lease contract, and the contract involved in the case did not clearly stipulate the place of performance of the contract, so the place where the leased property was used should be the place of performance of the contract. Now Chen asserts that he leases and uses shared bicycles in Haidian District, Beijing, so the People's Court of Haidian District, Beijing has jurisdiction over this case.

[What the judge said]

Standard terms restricting consumer rights shall be null and void

When entering into a contract between a consumer and a business operator, they may pay attention to the provisions on rights and obligations, and often ignore the attention to the jurisdiction clause. However, in practice, once a dispute arises, the jurisdiction agreement will affect the cost of litigation and the resolution of the dispute between the parties to a certain extent. The party providing a standard contract shall follow the principle of fairness in determining the rights and obligations between the parties. The use of standard clauses to conclude a jurisdiction agreement shall also be carried out in a reasonable manner, such as using a variety of methods sufficient to attract attention, such as emphasizing, bolding, and enlarging fonts, adding underlines, and special reminders. If the obligation to prompt is not fulfilled, the other party claims that the jurisdiction agreement is invalid and has a legal basis.

According to Article 496 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, standard clauses should have three characteristics at the same time: first, they should be drafted in advance, second, they should be used repeatedly, and third, they should not be negotiated. The provider of standard clauses shall perform the obligation of prompting and explaining before the conclusion of the contract. In the case of an electronic contract concluded through the Internet or other information networks, if the party providing the standard clauses only uses the means of setting up checks, pop-up windows, etc., to provide reminders and explanations, it is not sufficient to prove that it has fulfilled its obligation to prompt or explain. Whether the bike-sharing service agreement involved in the case is a standard contract and whether the jurisdiction agreement is a standard clause needs to be comprehensively judged based on whether the two parties have the possibility of negotiation at the time of entering into the contract.

In this case, Chen entered into a bicycle-sharing service agreement with a bike-sharing operator. The agreement is drawn up in advance by the bike-sharing operator for repeated use, and is a standard contract. Although the agreement stipulates a jurisdiction clause, the agreement does not specifically mark the jurisdiction clause when the other text content is blacked, and the jurisdiction clause is not prominent or conspicuous compared with the content of other agreements, and cannot reach the level of sufficient to attract the attention of the other party, so it cannot be determined that the bike-sharing operator has fulfilled its obligation to draw the attention of consumers in a reasonable manner. In the lawsuit, the bike-sharing operator also failed to provide evidence that it had fulfilled its corresponding obligations, so Chen's claim that the jurisdiction clause was invalid as a consumer should be supported. This reflects the protection of consumers' rights and interests by the law, and is conducive to preventing business operators from taking advantage of the dominant position of the proposed standard clauses to exclude or restrict consumers' rights without consumers' knowledge.

In addition, when adopting standard clauses, we should also note that the provider of standard clauses should take reasonable measures to remind the other party of the clauses that have a material interest in the other party, such as exempting or reducing its liability, and explain the clauses according to the requirements of the other party. If the provider of the standard clause fails to perform the above obligations, resulting in the other party not paying attention to or understanding the clause in which it has a material interest, the other party has the right to claim that the clause does not become the content of the contract. If the standard clause unreasonably exempts or reduces its liability, increases the liability of the other party, or restricts the main rights of the other party, the clause shall be invalid.

Text: Xiao Jinliang, Sun Mengqing (Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court)

Editor/Hu Keqing