Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the validity of "no refund after a certain period" clauses in prepaid contracts, particularly in the context of a dance training institution, highlighting a recent court case that ruled such clauses as invalid due to their restrictive nature on consumer rights [1][2]. Group 1: Contractual Issues - Prepaid contracts in industries like dining, training, and fitness often include "no refund after a certain period" clauses, which can lead to disputes [1]. - In a specific case, a consumer paid over 1700 yuan for dance courses, with a contract stipulating varying refund conditions based on the duration of enrollment [1]. Group 2: Court Ruling - The court found the clause "no refund after six months" to be a standard format clause that unfairly restricted the consumer's right to a refund, especially since course availability depended on a minimum number of participants [2]. - The court ruled in favor of the consumer, ordering the training institution to refund over 1200 yuan based on the circumstances of course cancellations and the consumer's rights [2]. Group 3: Legal Considerations - The judge noted that contracts in such contexts often involve personal attributes, and if conflicts arise, enforcing the contract could exacerbate the situation, leading to greater harm [2]. - Courts generally support consumers' requests to terminate contracts when disputes occur, reflecting a consumer-friendly approach in such legal matters [2].