Go homepage(回首页) Upload pictures (上传图片) Write articles (发文字帖)
The author:(作者)aaapublished in(发表于) 2013/12/16 0:33:03 Ban BYOB struggle： Chinese cuisine Association asked Beijing Bureau apology
Apologise in an open letter to Chinese cuisine Association request for Commerce and industry
Vice President of the Beijing Association of consumer law Qiu Baochang: misreading enterprises for the publication of deposited articles
Survey: BYOB-ban debate, Chinese cuisine Association Beijing to apologize to the Secretary for trade and industry, what do you think?
China cuisine Association yesterday published an open letter, asking for the State administration for industry and Commerce of Beijing Municipal industry and Commerce Bureau publication catering trade of 6 kinds of unfair form clause shall be prohibited and a public apology. Industry associations and Government departments this bitter conflict, municipal Bureau of silence yesterday, Beijing morning news reporter interviewed the Beijing consumers ' rights and interests protection law society Executive Vice President Qiu Baochang lawyers. In his view, the Commerce Department found that provisions of the King no question of effectiveness based on insufficient and inadequate, some enterprises for the published terms of misreading the tea leaves. In fact, Qiu Baochang lawyer's perspective, on some level, you can think that is the answer of the Secretary for trade and industry direction.
The controversy "overbearing clause" 1
"No BYOB"
Chinese cuisine Association believes that under the conditions of market economy, catering businesses and consumers were given ample freedom of choice. Catering and monopoly industries, consumers can vote with their feet. And is the price law, the consumer protection act and other legislative provisions, does not extend food enterprises "prohibits BYOB" dividing behavior into offence category.
Business sector to encourage consumers to bring their own food to restaurants? Qiu Baochang believe is misreading the tea leaves. This provision was identified as unfair form clause, because it denied the right to consumers ' complaints.
Life, even if consumers are not recommended, comes with some of the food, but it would be exempt from the safety of other food service operators to provide protection and consumers enjoy restaurant food and service provided by monitoring and complaint rights.
The controversy "overbearing clause" 2
"Avoid booking seats should be advised 15 days in advance, otherwise the full fee"
Chinese cuisine Association believes that, provided by the Beijing Municipal Bureau of the Beijing city reservation service contract also stressed that both sides could negotiate without agreed days notice of breach and termination of the contract. Now included in the provisions of the King, both in full contradiction.
Qiu Baochang said this provision is illegal after consumers default, operators charge standard terms imposed in accordance with the full cost for breach of contract. If the consumer fails to inform operators to reduce the number of book cover, the operator can be investigated for consumers ' liability for breach of requiring pay damages to the consumers in accordance with a certain percentage, but indiscriminate charge liquidated damages in accordance with the full cost, significantly exceeded the reasonable limits are violated the legitimate rights and interests of consumers.
The controversy "overbearing clause" 3
"Please take care of your belongings, lost the store shall not be liable for"
Chinese cuisine Association said the local public Security Bureau from the angle of protection of personal and property safety, requiring services to fulfill their duty to remind duty, lost after civilian police will also be highlighted in the prompt reminders at your own risk.
Qiu Baochang believes that this article could be defined as an unfair form clause does not mean full responsibility as long as the property is missing from the restaurant. Occur should first distinguish the specific responsibility that if consumers have responsibility for property loss, own; if it's due to property loss caused by the intentional misconduct or gross negligence of the operator, are not exempt from the corresponding liability of the operator. Operators ' use of terms such as "not responsible" or "own risk" such categorical terms, constitutes a violation of consumer's rights.
The controversy "overbearing clause" 4
"Tableware disinfection fee" or "tableware disinfection charge"
Chinese cuisine Association, said that at present all the catering business practices was, both for the consumers with repeated use of utensils, and provide consumers with more choice of tableware disinfection requirements. And the dishware disinfection in accordance with Ministry of health notification implementation, "tableware disinfection fee a dollar" such wording is usually printed tableware company. Chinese cuisine Association believes that if this statement is illegal, catering business unit, which was not an offence.
Qiu Baochang believes that these views appear to be confusing concept, because disinfection there is no contractual relationship between businesses and consumers. Clear the food safety law operators ' obligation to provide consumers with disinfection of tableware, catering enterprises are supposed to bear the cost of disinfection of tableware. Disinfection is borne by the catering enterprises themselves, or outsourced to other disinfection companies, has nothing to do with the consumer, restaurant expenses should not be passed on to consumers.
Dialogue Qiu Baochang
Beijing Morning News: does the Commerce Department decided that provisions of the King have a proper legal basis?
Qiu Baochang: the contract law and the law on protecting consumers ' rights and are good for standard terms clearly defined, Beijing Municipal Bureau of the applicable law is the basis of the above two of the supervision contract violations approach, an adequate legal basis.
Beijing morning post: how to treat the business sector proposed rectification period one month?
Qiu Baochang: rectification period of one month, is a time for catering business checking and correcting themselves, which fully embodies the concept of rational flexible enforcement of law enforcement, the business sector, such practices conducive to regulate the market and guide the catering enterprises to adjust management strategies, and create a harmonious consumption relations.
Morning news reporter Chaudun
中烹协公开信要求工商局致歉
北京消法学会副会长邱宝昌：企业对此次公布条款存误读
调查：禁自带酒水之争，中烹协要求北京工商局致歉，你怎么看？
中国烹饪协会昨日发表公开信，请求国家工商总局对北京市工商局发布餐饮行业6种不公平格式条款的行为予以制止并公开道歉。对于行业协会与政府部门这次罕见的激烈冲突，市工商局昨日沉默应对，北京晨报记者采访了北京市消费者权益保护法学会常务副会长邱宝昌律师。他认为，工商部门认定霸王条款不存在依据不足和效力不够的问题，部分企业对此次公布的条款存在误读。实际上，邱宝昌律师的观点，在某种程度上可以认为是工商局的应答方向。
争议“霸王条款”1
“禁止自带酒水”
中烹协认为，在市场经济条件下，餐饮企业和消费者都有充分选择的自由。餐饮业与垄断行业不同，消费者完全可以用脚投票。而且目前《价格法》、《消费者权益保护法》等法律条文中，并未把餐饮企业“禁止自带酒水”等行为划分到违法范畴。
工商部门鼓励消费者自带食品到餐厅就餐？邱宝昌认为纯属误读。此条款被认定为不公平格式条款，原因是它剥夺了消费者的投诉权利。
生活中，即便消费者不听建议，自带了部分食品，但不能因此免除经营者对其提供的其他餐饮服务的安全保障义务，消费者依法享有对餐厅所提供的食品和服务进行监督与投诉的权利。
争议“霸王条款”2
“减少订席须提前十五天告知，否则全额收费”
中烹协认为，在北京市工商局提供的《北京市订餐服务合同》中也强调双方可在协商的前提下，约定提前通知天数和合同解除的违约问题。如今却列入霸王条款，这两种做法完全自相矛盾。
邱宝昌则表示，这一条款的违法点是在消费者违约之后，经营者利用格式条款强行按照费用全额收取违约金。如果消费者未能提前告知经营者减少订餐席数，经营者可以依法追究消费者的违约责任，要求消费者按照一定比例支付违约金，但不加区分地按照费用全额收取违约金，就明显超过了合理范围，属于侵害了消费者的合法权益。
争议“霸王条款”3
“请保管好自己的物品，丢失本店概不负责”
中烹协表示，公安部门从保护人身财产安全角度，要求服务行业尽到提醒义务，在民警提示中也会强调在提醒后丢失自负。
邱宝昌认为，将这条界定为不公平格式条款，并不是说只要发生财物丢失都由餐厅承担全部责任。出现这种情况应首先分清具体责任，如果消费者对财物丢失有责任的，应自行承担；如果是由于经营者的故意或者重大过失造成的财产损失，经营者是不能免除相应责任的。经营者使用诸如“概不负责”或“责任自负”这样的绝对化用语时，就构成了对消费者权益的侵害。
争议“霸王条款”4
“消毒餐具工本费一元”或“消毒餐具另收费”
中烹协表示，目前所有的餐饮企业采取的做法是，既为消费者提供反复使用的餐具，又为有消毒餐具使用需求的消费者提供更多一种选择。而且餐具消毒是按照卫生部的通知贯彻的，“消毒餐具工本费一元”这样的字眼一般是餐具公司印制的。中烹协认为，如果这种表述算违法，餐饮企业只是使用单位，而并非违法主体。
邱宝昌认为，上述观点有混淆概念之嫌，因为消毒企业与消费者之间并没有发生合同关系。《食品安全法》明确了经营者向消费者提供消毒餐具的义务，餐饮企业理应承担因消毒餐具产生的费用。至于消毒工作具体是由餐饮企业自己承担，还是外包给其他消毒企业，与消费者没有关系，餐饮企业也不应把相关费用转嫁到消费者身上。
■对话邱宝昌
北京晨报：工商部门认定霸王条款是否有充分法律依据？
邱宝昌：《合同法》和《消费者权益保护法》都对格式条款问题有明确规定，北京市工商局适用的是依据上述两法制定的《合同违法行为监督处理办法》，有充足的法律依据。
北京晨报：如何看待工商部门提出的一个月整改期？
邱宝昌：一个月的整改期，是给餐饮企业自查自纠的时间，这也充分体现了工商部门理性执法、柔性执法的理念，这种做法有利于规范市场，引导餐饮企业调整经营策略，营造和谐的消费关系。
晨报记者 肖丹
赞