Workflow
霸王条款
icon
Search documents
小米汽车未收车就要结清20多万尾款,否则5000元定金作废?律师解读
Mei Ri Jing Ji Xin Wen· 2025-08-11 13:56
Core Viewpoint - Xiaomi Auto is facing backlash for requiring some customers to pay the remaining balance on their vehicles before production is completed, which deviates from standard industry practices [1][8][9] Group 1: Customer Payment Issues - Some customers reported being asked to pay the remaining balance within seven days or risk having their orders canceled and deposits forfeited [1][3] - The request for early payment primarily affects customers of the Xiaomi SU7 and SU7 Ultra models, particularly those who have requested delayed production or are assessed to have a high risk of not taking delivery [4][6] - Legal experts argue that consumers have the right to refuse payment during the production phase, as it could lead to financial difficulties and complicate potential claims regarding vehicle quality or delivery delays [3][9] Group 2: Company Justifications - Xiaomi Auto's rationale for this payment request is to mitigate the risk of customers backing out after production, which could disrupt the delivery schedule for other customers [6][7] - The company has indicated that this measure may help improve delivery efficiency for the affected models, given the long production cycles [2][4] Group 3: Legal and Ethical Concerns - Legal professionals have raised concerns that Xiaomi's payment terms may constitute "unconscionable clauses," as they impose significant risks on consumers without adequate notice [11][12] - The purchase agreement stipulates that failure to pay the remaining balance within the specified time could lead to order cancellation and forfeiture of the deposit, which some experts view as unfair [10][11] - There is a call for consumers to negotiate clearer terms regarding delivery timelines and quality assurances before making any payments [12]
小米汽车“未交车先结清尾款”引争议 销售人员:仅针对有特殊情况的准车主
Mei Ri Jing Ji Xin Wen· 2025-08-11 10:38
每经记者|李星 每经实习编辑|余婷婷 "车都没下线,小米(汽车)员工让7日内补齐尾款,不补齐定金直接作废。"近日,有用户在社交平台上称被"小米汽车要求提前支付尾款",并贴 出相应截图,引发市场关注。"车辆待生产,显示还有22至25周交付,今天突然收到交付顾问要求我7天内付款,我的要求是验车后再付尾款,销 售表示不付款就会把订单取消,定金不退。"一位小米SU7的用户称。 《每日经济新闻》记者联系到了一位小米SU7 Ultra的准车主,他是在7月30日收到小米汽车销售要求提前支付尾款的消息,表示非常气愤。"我 被'吓到'了。"该准车主告诉记者,自己已请律师在处理。 多位北京小米汽车销售人员告诉记者,要求提前交尾款仅针对部分有特殊情况的准车主。"只是针对提出过延迟交付,或评估有较高提车风险的用 户——比如办理金融分期时配合度较低,或表达过不想提车想法的。" 8月9日,广东国鼎律师事务所高级合伙人、公益律师廖建勋在接受记者采访时称,在车辆还在排产的情况下,消费者有权利拒绝支付尾款。"小米 汽车临时通知提前结清尾款,可能会导致消费者资金周转困难;且如果提前支付,若车辆交付出现延迟、质量问题,消费者在维权时将处于极为 被 ...
小米汽车被曝要求用户提前支付尾款,否则暂停生产,官方不予置评
Xin Lang Ke Ji· 2025-08-04 03:34
有消费者表示,已经交了定金,收到销售通知,为确保交易正常推进和稳定,订单将暂缓生产,原交付 周期不具备参考性,必须在30天内支付尾款才能继续生产。 近日,有多为网友在社交平台爆料称,购买小米汽车交付定金后,被销售要求提前支付尾款,否则面临 订单取消、定金不退的风险。 该条款是购车过程中"必须要同意"的,否则无法完成购车流程,有多位消费者质疑此为霸王条款。 但同时,小米汽车官方公众号曾明确表示小米支持验车后再付尾款,但建议用户提前办理相关手续,方 便到店后减少提车等待时间。 新浪科技就此事询问小米,官方不予置评。 责任编辑:王翔 据小米汽车购买协议,用户收到车辆余款支付通知之日起7个自然日内需要支付全部剩余款项。锁定订 单后,小米汽车有权根据车辆生产安排或销售等情况随时通知用户支付余款。未按期足额支付或拒绝支 付余款的行为构成根本性违约,小米汽车有权取消订单并解除本协议,且已支付的定金不予退还。 ...
演唱会前夕亲人离世退票被拒?大麦客服:不支持退款
Qi Lu Wan Bao· 2025-07-17 03:25
Core Viewpoint - The issue revolves around a consumer's complaint regarding the non-refund policy of a ticketing platform, Damai, after the consumer's grandmother passed away, raising questions about the fairness of such policies in light of unforeseen circumstances [1][3]. Group 1: Consumer Complaint - A consumer named Mr. Bai purchased tickets for a concert but sought a refund after his grandmother's death, providing necessary documentation as requested by Damai's customer service [1]. - Damai refused the refund, citing the ticket's non-refundable nature and the absence of a legal basis under consumer protection laws [3]. Group 2: Legal Perspective - Legal experts describe Damai's non-refund policy as a "霸王条款" (unfair clause), suggesting that such terms may be deemed invalid if they unreasonably limit consumer rights without adequate notice [4]. - The legal framework indicates that if a platform's terms excessively limit consumer rights and fail to provide reasonable notice, consumers may challenge the validity of those terms [4].
六问情感咨询机构:是否涉嫌诱导消费?设置霸王条款?
Nan Fang Du Shi Bao· 2025-03-24 08:17
Core Viewpoint - The article investigates the potential issues within emotional consulting agencies, including allegations of misleading advertising, consumer inducement, and unethical practices in service delivery [2][4][7]. Group 1: Industry Practices - Numerous consumers reported experiences of inducement and false promises while seeking emotional consulting services, spending thousands to tens of thousands of yuan without satisfactory results [2][4]. - The agencies involved collected extensive personal information from consumers and their partners, including work units, social media accounts, and property details, raising concerns about ethical practices [2][25]. - Many of the companies lack the necessary qualifications for psychological consulting, with only one out of six identified companies having relevant credentials [3][4]. Group 2: Misleading Advertising - Consumers claimed that agencies implied or promised successful relationship repairs, which may constitute false advertising if not explicitly stated in contracts [8][9]. - Some agencies, like Happiness Youfang, allegedly suggested high success rates for their services, which could mislead consumers into purchasing upgrades [9][12]. Group 3: Consumer Inducement - Agencies reportedly encouraged consumers to frequently upgrade their services, suggesting that failure to do so could hinder their chances of success [13][14]. - Responses from agency representatives indicated that they do not engage in coercive sales tactics, but consumer testimonies suggest otherwise [14][15]. Group 4: Ethical Concerns - The practice of "dual service," where therapists engage both partners without full disclosure, raises ethical questions regarding consent and confidentiality [17][21]. - The "separation of third parties" service offered by some agencies, which involves creating conflict to break up relationships, is viewed as unethical and contrary to professional standards [22][24]. Group 5: Information Collection - Agencies collected extensive personal data, which may violate the principle of minimal necessity in data protection laws, as much of the information gathered was not directly relevant to the services provided [25][26]. - Concerns were raised about the necessity and relevance of the information collected, with suggestions that it exceeded what was required for service delivery [26]. Group 6: Contractual Issues - Many contracts included clauses that favored the agencies, such as requiring consumer consent for contract termination while lacking clear terms regarding the agency's responsibilities [27][28]. - Legal experts indicated that such contractual terms could be deemed invalid due to the imbalance of rights and obligations between the parties involved [30].