Recently, Ms. Han in Beijing reported that she bought 48 private classes in a fitness club in Chaoyang District, and each class was 400 yuan. At that time, the payment amount was 19200 yuan. After taking some classes, the gym gave her a new coach because of the agreed personal training. She felt that the new coach was not up to standard and often missed classes, so she wanted to drop the rest of the classes. However, the merchant said that according to the contract, it is necessary to deduct 30% of the total amount as a handling fee. Therefore, if she wants to get the money back from the private education class of 3,200 yuan, she has to pay a handling fee of 5,760 yuan, which is equivalent to 2,560 yuan. Mr. Ma, who lives in Changping District, Beijing, also said that he wanted to take a private education course in a fitness center, but the contract stipulated that the course fee would not be refunded for any reason. And if you want to transfer to others, you need to pay 25% of the total.

It is not uncommon to encounter such terms when signing a contract in a gym. Is this clause requiring huge handling fees legal? According to Item (2) of Article 497 of the Civil Code, if the party providing the standard clause unreasonably exempts or lightens its responsibility, aggravates the other party's responsibility or restricts the other party's main rights, the clause is invalid. In the process of general contract performance, consumers have the right to terminate the contract when there are reasons for termination that cannot be attributed to consumers. Due to the resignation of the personal trainer in the gym, the course can't be carried out as planned, which is a situation that can't blame the consumer, so the customer has the right to refund. At the same time, consumers often sign service agreements based on trust relationship with personal trainers. Therefore, if consumers are unwilling to accept the services of other coaches, they have the right to request a reasonable return. Similarly, there are barbershops and beauty salons. If the hairdresser and beautician leave, customers want a refund, and they also have reasonable rights. The "no refund for any reason" clause put forward by Mr. Ma's gym is also illegal. This is an unfair and unreasonable format clause, which completely excludes consumers' right to ask for a refund. No matter according to the relevant provisions of the Civil Code or the Law on the Protection of Consumers' Rights and Interests, this move belongs to the use of standard clauses by operators to reduce or exempt their responsibilities and aggravate consumers' responsibilities. This clause is invalid.