小米汽车首例定金案败诉“未交车催收尾款”被判双倍返还定金

Core Viewpoint - The Haikou City Meilan District People's Court ruled that Xiaomi's "prepayment of the balance before vehicle delivery" clause in its purchase agreement is invalid, marking a significant legal precedent for consumer rights in the automotive industry [1][3]. Group 1: Legal Judgment - The court found the clause requiring payment of the full balance within seven days without vehicle inspection to be invalid, as it imposed undue obligations on consumers and restricted their rights [3]. - The ruling emphasized that Xiaomi's promotional statements about allowing payment after vehicle inspection were misleading, violating the principle of good faith [3]. - The court also noted that Xiaomi breached the supplementary agreement regarding the order's validity period, as they demanded payment without receiving a production request from the consumer [3]. Group 2: Industry Context - The case highlights broader issues within the automotive industry, particularly the problematic "pre-sale" model, which has led to consumer complaints about payment obligations not aligning with delivery commitments [1][5]. - There is a growing trend of complaints against Xiaomi regarding the sequence of payment and delivery obligations, indicating systemic issues in their sales practices [4][5]. - The automotive industry is facing challenges such as data inflation, where refundable deposits are misrepresented as actual orders, leading to distorted industry metrics [5][6]. Group 3: Consumer Rights and Industry Practices - The traditional practice in the automotive sector involves paying a deposit and settling the balance upon vehicle delivery, which protects consumer interests [5]. - The court's decision reinforces the notion that companies cannot shift all risks to consumers through contractual clauses, advocating for fair transaction principles [6]. - The industry must balance growth with the ability to fulfill commitments, focusing on service quality to ensure long-term success [6].