"向海外转移50亿美金"事件刚刚落下帷幕，雷军又陷入新的舆论风暴。一波不平一波又起，流量真是一把双刃剑，它既可以把雷军和小米推上高高神坛，也 能使之坠入万丈深渊。 前些天，有传言称"小米雷军被爆通过富国银行茅晨月，向海外转出50亿美金"。富国银行美籍高管茅晨月7月份被外交部证实，因涉刑事案件被依法限制出 境。所以传言一出，雷军被推上风口浪尖。后来小米集团公关部总经理王化，在微博上进行了辟谣："小米集团在全球范围内没有和富国银行以及茅XX开展 过任何合作，也未有任何形式上的接触。"至此真相大白，雷军身上的冤情得解。 然而，近日小米强制车主提前交付尾款的事件持续发酵，雷军再次陷入舆论风暴。有多名小米准车主反映，在车辆待生产（尚未排产）状态下，被小米方面 要求7日内提前支付尾款，否则订单取消、定金不退。有截图信息显示，有车主被要求7日内支付57.39万元尾款，否则订单将取消，2万元定金也会被没收。 据悉，此次被要求提前支付尾款的对象，主要为小米SU7和SU7 Ultra的准车主。 众所周知，房地产行业有"期房"的存在，港澳地区成为"楼花"。这是商品房预售制下产生的一种销售方式，被开发商们普遍采用。这种方式，业主们承 ...

以下文章来源于每经头条 ，作者每经记者 每经头条 . 专业+深度+故事+传播 互联网新闻信息服务许可证编号：51120190017 来源|每日经济新闻 "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。 图片来源：某社交平台 《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。" ...

Core Viewpoint - Xiaomi's request for customers to pay the remaining balance for their vehicles before delivery has raised concerns and legal questions regarding consumer rights and standard practices in the automotive industry [1][8][11]. Group 1: Customer Reactions and Concerns - Some customers reported being asked to pay the remaining balance within seven days, despite their vehicles still being in production, leading to frustration and legal consultations [1][3]. - Customers expressed that they prefer to pay the remaining balance only after inspecting the vehicle, which is a common practice in the industry [8][9]. - Legal experts argue that consumers have the right to refuse payment during the production phase, as it deviates from standard purchasing practices [8][11]. Group 2: Xiaomi's Justification and Practices - Xiaomi claims that the early payment request is aimed at preventing customers from backing out after production, which could disrupt delivery schedules for other customers [6][7]. - The company has indicated that the early payment requirement applies mainly to customers who have previously requested delivery delays or shown reluctance to complete the purchase [4][6]. - Xiaomi's customer service acknowledged that the early payment requests are not standard and depend on specific customer situations [4][6]. Group 3: Legal and Industry Implications - Legal experts have pointed out that Xiaomi's purchasing agreement may contain "unfair clauses," as it allows the company to unilaterally demand payment before delivery, which could disadvantage consumers [11][12]. - The purchasing agreement stipulates that failure to pay the remaining balance within the specified time could result in order cancellation and forfeiture of the deposit, raising concerns about consumer rights [10][11]. - Experts suggest that consumers should negotiate for clear delivery timelines and quality assurances before making any payments to mitigate risks [12].

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]

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].