XIAOMI(HK:01810) Zhong Guo Zheng Quan Bao·2025-11-27 21:18Core Viewpoint - The Haikou City Meilan District People's Court ruled that Xiaomi's "prepayment of the balance within 7 days without vehicle inspection" clause in the purchase agreement is invalid, marking a significant judicial reference for consumer rights protection in the automotive industry [1][3]. Group 1: Court Ruling Details - The court identified three main bases for its ruling: the invalidity of the format clause, violation of good faith principles, and breach of supplementary agreements [3]. - The format clause imposed an undue payment obligation on consumers without allowing for vehicle inspection, which contradicts the Consumer Rights Protection Law [3]. - Xiaomi's official communication indicated support for payment after vehicle inspection, which was not honored in practice, undermining consumer trust [3]. Group 2: Consumer Case Background - A consumer, referred to as Ms. Li, ordered a vehicle and paid a deposit, but faced demands for full payment without vehicle delivery, leading to a legal dispute [2][4]. - The company unilaterally canceled the order and forfeited the deposit, prompting Ms. Li to file a lawsuit after unsuccessful attempts to resolve the issue through customer service [2][4]. Group 3: Industry Implications - The ruling highlights systemic issues in the automotive industry's pre-sale model, including data inflation and delivery discrepancies due to supply chain challenges [5][7]. - Complaints regarding payment obligations and delivery timelines have surged, indicating a broader trend of consumer dissatisfaction with pre-sale practices in the industry [5][6]. - The traditional model of "deposit plus payment upon delivery" is contrasted with Xiaomi's approach, which may lead to significant consumer rights concerns [6][7].