According to the common practice of commodity service contracts between consumers and operators in China, except for special commodities and services, operators should bear the responsibility of replacement and return. The services agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant are not special goods and services. Although there is no express provision in the contract, this rule must be observed. Therefore, the plaintiff has the right to demand a refund of the paid price before obtaining the service. The non-refundable terms of membership fee and membership fee in the contract will lead to the unfair result that the plaintiff, as a consumer, will pay the price even if he can't get the service, which undoubtedly exempts the defendant from his main obligations. As the terms of the contract are standard terms formulated by the defendant, the defendant did not indicate the above terms in a way that attracted the plaintiff's attention, nor did he provide evidence to prove that he made a clear explanation to the plaintiff, so the terms were invalid.

The reason why the two parties in this case dispute whether the contract is valid or not is because both parties believe that the validity of the contract is the basis for determining their subsequent creditor's rights. The plaintiff thinks that if the contract does not take effect, the defendant will have no legal basis to occupy the plaintiff's royalties, and the plaintiff's claim will be easily realized. The defendant thinks that the contract comes into effect, and the plaintiff should be bound by the terms of the contract, so the defendant should not return the royalties. Regardless of whether the two parties' expressions of will are correct or not, if the request for confirmation of the validity of the contract is an application of the parties, the court must hear it. This case is not invalid as stipulated in Article 52 of the Contract Law, nor is it approved and registered as stipulated in Article 44 of the Contract Law. Under normal circumstances, according to the provisions of Article 44 of the Contract Law, it shall be deemed to be effective as of the date of its establishment, unless there are conditions or time limits stipulated in the contract. The plaintiff claims that "the starting date of membership is 2065438+April 8, 2003" is a time-limited agreement. The defendant denied the plaintiff's claim, arguing that the "effective after signing and sealing" agreed in the contract between the two parties had stipulated the effective conditions, which was a dispute over the effective terms of the relationship between the two parties. In this regard, the essence of the court is to determine how the two sides reach an agreement on the entry into force of the contract. Article 125 of China's "Contract Law" stipulates that "if the parties have disputes about the understanding of the terms of the contract, they should determine the true meaning of the terms of the contract according to the words used in the contract, the relevant terms of the contract, the purpose of the contract, the trading habits and the principle of good faith." This clause not only establishes the content of the principle of contract interpretation, but also establishes the application order of the principle of contract interpretation, that is, the priority application rule of the principle of literal interpretation. Obviously, regarding the validity of the contract, the principle of literal interpretation should be applied first, and the dispute between the two sides is also about the understanding of characters. As for the interpretation of words, it is generally said that they should be interpreted according to the usual understanding. Both parties expressly agree to express a certain meaning, which should be interpreted according to the meaning accepted by both parties. 1 However, if there is a conflict of intention, it should be understood from the overall content of the contract. Clear meaning is better than vague meaning, explicit meaning is better than implied meaning, and only one kind of understanding is better than many kinds of understanding. Obviously, in the two disputed clauses in this case, the expression "effective after being signed and sealed by both parties" is clear and clear, which can be generally understood, while "affiliation date is 2065438+April 8, 2003" can not directly make people agree on the validity period, nor directly express the validity of the contract, nor conflict with the above clauses, so it can not be considered as an agreement on effectiveness. Moreover, more importantly, from the contract as a whole, the plaintiff's main obligation in the disputed contract in this case, that is, the obligation to pay the price, was fulfilled on March 30, 20 13. The plaintiff has fulfilled this obligation and the defendant has accepted it, but the plaintiff will only perform it if he subjectively acknowledges that the contract has come into effect. Therefore, when the original defendant and the defendant signed the contract, they really meant that the contract would take effect from the time of signing, and the plaintiff claimed that the agreement that there was an effective period attached to the contract could not be established.