Xinhua news agency, Beijing March 16th – live in the city of Beijing in Haidian District Huang in the Tmall mall a shop to buy goods quality problems, consumers will Haidian District Beijing people’s court and the Tmall company to the shop. After accepting the case, the court accepted the jurisdiction objection submitted by Tmall, which should be taken as the court of first instance under the jurisdiction of the defendant. In this regard, Haidian District court held that, after the introduction of the new civil procedure law interpretation, consumers can sue in court receipt.
according to reports, Tmall believes that consumers shopping at Tmall registered Taobao account will display the "Taobao service agreement", agreed: "you are with the Taobao platform operators agreed to the people’s Court of the place where is the jurisdiction of the court of first instance". Therefore, Tmall believes that there is a jurisdiction agreement with the consumer in this case, the agreement shall be governed. Yuhang, Zhejiang District, Hangzhou District, Zhejiang, should be transferred to the Yuhang District People’s court.
court believes that the thirty-first interpretation provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the application of the February 4, 2015 implementation of the "PRC Civil Procedure Law", "operators use the standard terms jurisdiction agreement with consumers, did not take reasonable way to draw the attention of consumers, consumer advocate jurisdiction agreement is invalid, the people’s court shall support". Tmall offers a "consent agreement and registration" option, the default is approved to direct the plaintiff agreement, click on this option, "the agreement jurisdiction" is not expressly, need to click on the access protocol, and the protocol content variety, "agreement" clause of inclusion in the complicated information. The court held that the jurisdiction agreement provided by Tmall in the above manner failed to meet the standards.
"contract law of the People’s Republic of China" fortieth: "provision of the provisions of the format of a party to waive its responsibility, increase the other party’s responsibility, excluding the other party’s main rights, the provisions of the invalid". Haidian court finds that the jurisdiction agreement provided by Tmall is invalid. Where an agreement is not valid, a lawsuit brought on a contract dispute shall be under the jurisdiction of the people’s Court of the place where the defendant has his domicile or where the contract is performed. As a result, the Haidian court ruled that the rejection of Tmall’s jurisdiction objection. The Tmall company has not said whether to appeal.