An Analysis On Plaintiff Mr.Liu And Defendant Changsha Branch Of China Mobile On The Reset Of Data Traffic

With the highly-developed communication technology in the current society,especially with the emergence of4G network, more and more consumers have muchstronger dependence on network than ever before. One good performance is that suchdata plans provided by mobile operator successfully appeal to large groups ofconsumers. In the case between plaintiff Mr. Liu and defendant Changsha branch ofChina Mobile on the reset of data traffic, it involves wide fields and comes withrelatively high expertise. Among so many disputes, there are two core issues. One isthat whether it is a usage of trade or international convention for the defendant toreset the plaintiff’s unused data or not. The other is that whether the terms of serviceon data usage signed between them are imparity clauses or not. Firstly, thedefendant’s behavior of resetting plaintiff’s unused data traffic goes against usage oftrade and international conventions. Usage of trade should be the custom that bothcontracting parties well know. But in the case, the plaintiff did not know the rule ofmonthly data resetting. Therefore, it does not accord with the elements of usage.International conventions normally apply to cases which involve international legalissues so that they can not apply in this case. Secondly, on the issue of agreementnature, the contract can be regard as standard form of contract since it has fixed formwithout attendance of plaintiff in the formulation of the contract. Therefore theclauses have the nature of standard terms. The defendant makes use of its dominantposition in business and limits plaintiff’s rights with standard terms. Those areimparity clauses. Such service agreements should be taken as invalid clauses. Finally,the liability issues should also be considered in the case. The plaintiff has theownership of his data traffic. The defendant’s behavior of resetting plaintiff’s unuseddata traffic without permission has violated the property rights of plaintiff. Thedefendant did not inform the plaintiff that unused data traffic cannot be extended tonext month when signing the contract. It violates the plaintiff’s rights to know.Besides, the defendant rules the unit of the data plan as a month without anycommunication or agreement with the plaintiff. It violates the plaintiff’s rights of fairtrade. Therefore, the defendant should take the tortious liability by returningplaintiff’s unused data traffic, ceasing the infringing act and compensating for theeconomic loss.