Analysis On Dispute Cases Of Standard Terms Of Network Service Contract

With the continuous development of the economy and society,the emergence of the Internet has expanded the channels for transactions,and network contracts have come into being and are developing rapidly with the progress of technology.People enjoy a variety of convenient network services through cell phones,computers and other terminals,which greatly enriches people’s material and spiritual life,and receive a variety of network services.As a link between the network platform and the network users,the form terms of network service contracts have also been widely used.With the development of network service contract format clauses,more and more disputes arise between network service providers and network users,and China’s Civil Code,Electronic Commerce Law and other laws are insufficient in this area,making it impossible for disputes to be properly resolved.2019 Akiyay "over-the-top on-demand case" is precisely the case of network users and The case is a typical case arising from disputes between network users and network service providers over the format terms of network service contracts.There are four core controversial points in this case:whether the "VIP service agreement" in question is a format clause;whether the provider of the format clause has fulfilled its obligation to indicate and explain;the effectiveness of the terms of the "VIP service agreement" in question;and whether the unilateral modification of the terms by the network service provider constitutes a breach of contract.Whether the unilateral modification of the terms constitutes a breach of contract.First,the nature of the "VIP service agreement" should be determined.Since the service agreement was prepared unilaterally by Akiyip in advance and repeatedly used by many VIP members,it is in line with the criteria for determining the format terms of network service contracts.Secondly,the provider of network services should do its duty of prompting and explaining.The provider of format terms should prompt and explain the format terms in a reasonable manner and in accordance with the requirements of the other party,but Aqiyi did not fulfill this legal obligation.Again,it is necessary to determine the effectiveness of the "VIP service agreement" clause in the case.Akiyip agreed to exclude the application of the rules of the format clause stipulated by law through the format clause,and exempted itself from responsibility in the format clause,and the clause in question should be invalid.Finally,the act of unilateral modification of the terms by the network service provider constitutes a breach of contract and is invalid.The Civil Code provides for the rules of contract change,and Aiki unilaterally changed the format terms without notifying the plaintiff nor publicizing it on the platform,which does not have the elements of validity.In addition,due to the current network service contract format terms there are some problems,the relevant judicial interpretation needs to clarify the criteria of the obligation to explain the format terms provider,and combine the characteristics of the Internet to modify the rules of jurisdiction and proof,administrative organs as law enforcement departments should also strengthen the supervision and review of network service format terms,while strengthening industry self-regulation and social supervision is also very necessary.