Core Viewpoint - The court ruled that Costco (Nanjing) Commercial Co., Ltd. breached the contract by unilaterally canceling the membership of Mr. Li, ordering the company to restore his membership for an additional 96 days [1][17]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - Mr. Li filed a lawsuit against Costco Nanjing after the company canceled his membership, claiming it constituted a fundamental breach of contract [1][17]. - The court found that Mr. Li's actions, including multiple complaints and claims for compensation, did not violate legal provisions and were not indicative of "profit-seeking" behavior [17][22]. - Costco argued that Mr. Li's frequent claims and complaints suggested he was not a typical consumer, but the court ruled that such behavior did not justify the cancellation of his membership [1][4][17]. Group 2: Membership Details - Mr. Li purchased a membership card for 199 yuan, originally priced at 299 yuan, with a validity period from May 28, 2024, to May 27, 2025 [1][3]. - The company canceled his membership on February 20, 2025, and refunded the membership fee, which Mr. Li contested in court [1][14]. - The court determined that Costco's cancellation of Mr. Li's membership was a unilateral termination of the contract, which was deemed a breach of contract [17][22]. Group 3: Company Defense - Costco claimed that Mr. Li's behavior, including 23 shopping trips and multiple claims totaling 280,000 yuan, indicated he was a "professional litigant" rather than a genuine consumer [4][6]. - The company also pointed to Mr. Li's history of complaints and lawsuits against various retailers as evidence of his non-compliance with membership rules [6][11]. - The court, however, ruled that the terms of membership that allowed Costco to deny entry were not adequately communicated to Mr. Li, thus invalidating the basis for cancellation [21][22].

Core Viewpoint - The court ruled that Costco (Nanjing) Company breached the contract by unilaterally canceling the membership of Mr. Li, ordering the company to continue fulfilling the membership contract and extend the membership validity by 96 days [1][14][18]. Group 1: Membership Cancellation Case - Mr. Li purchased a Costco membership card for 199 yuan, valid from May 28, 2024, to May 27, 2025, but was informed of the cancellation on February 20, 2025, with a refund of the membership fee [2][4]. - Costco argued that Mr. Li's frequent claims and complaints, totaling 280,000 yuan, indicated he was not a regular consumer but rather a "professional litigant" [4][10]. - The court found that Mr. Li's actions did not violate legal provisions and ruled that Costco's cancellation of his membership constituted a breach of contract [15][18]. Group 2: Legal Arguments and Court Ruling - Costco claimed that Mr. Li's behavior violated the principles of good faith, justifying the cancellation of his membership [14][15]. - Mr. Li contended that the clause allowing Costco to decide on consumer access was a format clause that excluded consumer rights and lacked proper notification, rendering it ineffective [14][18]. - The court determined that Costco's unilateral cancellation of the membership was a breach of contract, ordering the company to restore the membership validity for an additional 96 days and bear the case acceptance fee of 80 yuan [18].

Core Points - The training institution faced a decline in teaching quality, leading to refund requests from parents that were denied by the owner [1] - The owner secretly transferred the business to another individual without informing the parents, resulting in the institution's eventual closure and further complications regarding refunds [2] - A lawsuit was filed by parents seeking the return of approximately 140,000 yuan in prepaid fees, with the court consolidating the cases for trial [2] Group 1 - The original operator, Wang Dacheng, was found to have transferred his obligations to Yang without proper notification to consumers, which was deemed ineffective in terms of legal responsibility for refunds [3] - The court ruled that Wang Dacheng still bore the responsibility to return the prepaid fees collected during his operation period [3] - The contract terms regarding course validity were considered unfair and invalid, as they excluded consumer rights to refunds and were classified as format clauses [4] Group 2 - The court determined that Wang Dacheng's unauthorized transfer of the training center led to complications in verifying consumer data, which he was held accountable for [5] - The court recognized the validity of the parents' claims and ordered Wang Dacheng to refund over 128,000 yuan to the affected parents [5] - The ruling was upheld in a second trial, confirming the initial judgment [6]