Platform reservation is non-refundable.

During the summer vacation, I want to travel to the province with my best friend. After all, I didn't dare to expect to travel far during the epidemic. After discussing the time with my best friend, I booked a hotel on the 23rd in Meituan, but two days after the Maoming epidemic, I had no choice but to cancel the trip. However, I didn't expect to apply for a refund at Meituan, but I was rejected. At that time, I still have 12 days to stay in the hotel. The reason is: 65,438+05 minutes will not be cancelled.

But is it really reasonable?

Today, I will talk to you about the non-refundable hotel reservation.

I couldn't find a refund method on the hotel reservation page that day. I called the hotel at the first time and told the hotel that my trip was cancelled because of the epidemic and I wanted to cancel the hotel reservation. As a result, the hotel told me that I couldn't cancel it 15 minutes after I placed the order. Let me communicate with meituan platform. I said, let's communicate with the platform. As a result, the hotel told me that even if I communicated with the platform, the hotel could refuse the refund. Then the hotel gave me the following non-refundable items.

1, even if the epidemic comes back now, it may be better on the 23rd, and you can continue to consume, so there is no need to leave so early;

2. Even if it is an epidemic now, the hotel can check me in as long as there is a nucleic acid test report and a green code;

The hotel has reserved a room for me. If I don't check in, the hotel will bear the loss;

4. The reservation page has clearly written 15 minutes for free cancellation. Since the reservation is selected, it is equivalent to accepting the terms by default.

The hotel lady speaks plausibly, but in fact it runs counter to the law.

Free cancellation within 1 and 15 minutes, otherwise it is illegal to deduct all fees.

Meituan belongs to the life service e-commerce platform, and my behavior of booking a hotel online is equivalent to an online shopping. According to Article 25 of the Law on the Protection of Consumers' Rights and Interests and Article 2 of the Supreme People's Court's Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Internet Consumption Disputes (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations"), if an e-commerce operator promises to return the four excluded goods specified in the first paragraph of Article 25 of the Law on the Protection of Consumers' Rights and Interests within seven days without any reason, the people's court shall support it.

The above two legal provisions are actually mandatory laws, and the conclusion of the contract follows the principle of autonomy of will, but the parties can only choose arbitrary laws to avoid the application of mandatory laws. There is no doubt that the seven-day unreasonable return rule is mandatory. The free cancellation period stipulated by the platform or hotel can only be longer than seven days and not shorter than seven days.

2. Is it based on the above-mentioned law that the Meituan or the hotel can stipulate that it is not allowed to cancel the reservation free of charge for more than seven days or more, and all fees should be deducted? I don't think there is any legal basis.

After I placed the order on the platform, the hotel did not stop the online sales of this room type. Before I actually moved in, the room type was in the state of external sales. My booking behavior did not actually affect the US Mission and the hotel to continue to make profits through this room type. During the booking period, the hotel can open this room type for sale to unspecified people in the society, and I only need to provide check-in service for me during my stay. So the hotel mentioned that if I cancel the reservation, it will be a loss for the hotel. After all, the hotel didn't actually provide me with the price service, but it had to deduct all the expenses, which violated the provisions of Article 10 of the Consumer Protection Law, and constituted a forced transaction, which was an infringement.

When Meituan booked a hotel, the consumer prepaid the money to Meituan platform, and checked in after the prepayment, that is, the service was provided in advance. According to Article 53 of the Consumer Protection Law, if an operator provides goods or services in advance, it shall provide services in accordance with the agreement; If it fails to perform within the time limit, it shall fulfill the agreement or return the advance payment according to the requirements of consumers; And shall bear the interest of the advance payment and the reasonable expenses that the consumer must pay.

In fact, due to personal reasons of consumers, businesses cannot fulfill the agreement, and businesses are also bound by this law, but consumers need to bear certain liquidated damages. However, the deduction of liquidated damages and the refund of advance payment can be carried out at the same time and are not contradictory. You can't refuse to return the full advance payment just because the consumer defaults first. You can return the balance after deducting the liquidated damages to consumers, or you can ask consumers to pay the liquidated damages first and then return the advance payment.

Suppose all the customers who have booked this hotel room type can't stay because of their own reasons. Don't worry about personal reasons yet. The hotel can make a profit without providing any actual check-in service only by relying on the rule of "free cancellation within 15 minutes". If I were a hotel, I would even expect customers not to stay. As long as the order is placed for more than 15 minutes, I will have money to enter. I think the original intention of this regulation is to protect the interests of platforms and hotels, but based on this possibility, both platforms and hotels should use this regulation with caution, otherwise it is difficult to protect the rights and interests of consumers.

It is worth noting that I didn't mention the cause of the epidemic here, that is to say, excluding force majeure, even under normal circumstances, this provision has greatly infringed on the rights and interests of consumers, not to mention that during the epidemic, various unforeseen circumstances emerged one after another, further increasing the possibility of consumers canceling their trips. On the one hand, this clause ensures that the hotel has no risks, on the other hand, consumers undoubtedly bear all risks, which violates the principle of fairness in the contract.

3. Booking hotels online is a common behavior in e-commerce activities. The transaction object of online shopping contract is not specific. This contract was concluded without consultation with the other party. Once prepared, it can be reused. It is a standard contract and is restricted by the relevant provisions of the Civil Code on standard contracts.

According to paragraph 2 of Article 497 of the General Principles of Civil Law and paragraph 5 of Article/kloc-0 of the Regulations, if the party providing the standard clauses unreasonably exempts or lightens its responsibilities, aggravates the responsibilities of the other party and restricts the main rights of the other party, it is an invalid clause. Therefore, the rule that 15 minutes later is not refundable and all expenses are deducted is invalid. I can ask the platform or the store for a refund.

After I put forward the legal basis and reasons, I finally reached an agreement with them. The hotel deducted my liquidated damages from 300 yuan, and Meituan subsidized me 199 yuan, which was equivalent to my loss of 1, 0 1 yuan. Although it was not satisfactory, the matter was finally solved.

What happened gave me the motivation to write this article, and I attach relevant rights protection methods for your reference. At the same time, I also remind everyone that if you have a travel plan, you must read the relevant regulations of the platform when booking a hotel online, which can also save time for safeguarding rights.

Finally, let's talk about the path of safeguarding rights:

Path 1: You can defend your rights through the ordering platform.

General platforms have their own rights protection platforms, and hotels are booked online. If there is any dispute, you can communicate and negotiate through the relevant rights protection channels of the network platform first. Relevant evidence, such as chat records, transaction records, telephone communication, etc., should be kept throughout the negotiation process. The main purpose here is to preserve evidence for the next rights protection. Please refer to the above for specific negotiation contents and laws and regulations.

Path 2: Complaints from consumer associations or relevant administrative departments.

If the first path doesn't work, or it doesn't achieve satisfactory results, you can call 123 15 to complain to the consumer association. Or complain to the administrative department for industry and commerce where the consumer is located. The process of complaint needs to be well preserved. If the purpose of the complaint cannot be achieved, it can also be used as evidence for the third path.

Route 3: bring a lawsuit to the court.

1, who is the defendant:

Who is the defendant should be decided according to the nature of the focus of the dispute, which is generally divided into breach of contract liability dispute and tort liability dispute.

If it is the liability for breach of contract, the defendant should be the hotel. According to the principle of contract relativity, the establishment of a contract is legally binding only on the parties. The reservation of a hotel by a consumer is actually a contract based on the buying and selling relationship with the hotel. It is the consumer who buys the room service and the hotel who provides the check-in service, so the defendant should be the hotel.

According to Article 44 of the Consumer Protection Law and Article 60 of the E-commerce Law, consumers can claim compensation from sellers or service providers when their rights and interests are infringed. Only when consumers can't find sellers or service providers through the online platform, the online platform, namely Meituan, will bear joint liability as the defendant. The joint and several liability here belongs to conditional unreal joint and several liability, and the Meituan can recover from the hotel after assuming the liability for compensation.

If, based on tort liability, according to Article 44 of the Consumer Protection Law, the platform operator knows or should know that the seller uses its platform to infringe the legitimate rights and interests of the buyer and fails to take necessary measures, the platform operator shall be jointly and severally liable with the hotel for infringement. At this point, consumers can only sue the hotel, or they can only sue Meituan, or they can be listed as defendants. However, once a consumer chooses to exercise one claim, another claim will be extinguished after his claim is satisfied.

2. The competent court:

At present, Internet courts have been established in Beijing, Guangzhou and Hangzhou, which have centralized jurisdiction over specific types of Internet-related first-instance cases within the city's jurisdiction. Consumers can bring a lawsuit to the above three Internet courts according to their actual situation. Online prosecution and trial in Internet courts can greatly reduce litigation costs and improve litigation efficiency, which is undoubtedly the best choice to solve online shopping disputes.

Consumers whose locations are not within the jurisdiction of the above three courts should also choose the appropriate court according to the focus of the dispute:

If the dispute is based on infringement, according to the provisions of Article 29 of the Civil Procedure Law and Articles 24 and 26 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law, the courts at the place where the infringement was committed, the place where the infringement result occurred, the defendant's domicile, the place where the alleged infringement was committed and the place where the infringement result occurred all have jurisdiction.

According to Article 26 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law, the people's courts in the places where products are manufactured, products are sold, services are provided, infringement places and the defendant's domicile have jurisdiction over lawsuits brought because of substandard products and services.

If it is based on breach of contract, according to the provisions of Article 22 of the Civil Procedure Law, a lawsuit can be brought to the court where the defendant has his domicile; Or according to the provisions of Article 24 of the Civil Procedure Law, a lawsuit may be brought to the court of the defendant's domicile or the place where the contract is performed. According to Article 20 of the Interpretation of Civil Procedure Law, if the subject matter is delivered through the information network, the domicile of the buyer is the place where the contract is performed; Where the subject matter is delivered by other means, the place of receipt is the place of performance of the contract.

For different defendants and different legal relationships, online shopping contract disputes are not necessarily limited by the jurisdiction clauses agreed in the user agreement of Meituan Platform.

Finally, the above three paths can be used freely, in no particular order. It is recommended to negotiate first, and I believe that the platform and merchants can solve the problem properly and quickly.

Recently, the Supreme People's Court released a typical case of consumer rights protection, involving a number of rights protection cases caused by online shopping contracts. With the promulgation of the Civil Code and the improvement of corresponding laws and regulations, it is the general trend to protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers under the background of digital economy, which is of great significance to maintaining the order of online trading market.

As a leading e-commerce platform in China, Meituan hopes to build a more harmonious online shopping environment and bring more convenience to everyone. I hope that the mission of "helping everyone eat better and live better" is not just a slogan.