In recent years, prepaid contracts have been widely used in industries such as catering, training, and fitness. Many of these types of contracts have "non refundable overdue payments" clauses, which can easily lead to disputes. Is this clause valid? In September 2023, Wang registered for a dance course at a training institution and paid over 1700 yuan to purchase the relevant courses. Both parties agreed in the contract that "students who drop out within 15 days of the start of the course will have their remaining fees refunded; students who drop out within 60 days but less than half a year will have their fees refunded by 80%; and students who drop out beyond half a year will not have their fees refunded." Wang was also informed during registration that students need to register for the course in the WeChat group, and if the number of applicants is less than 3, the course will be cancelled on the same day. In April 2024, a teacher from a training institution notified students in a WeChat group: "Starting from next week, if you do not take leave with me, the system will schedule classes normally. Wang believes that "consumers have no obligation to take leave from training institutions" and has a dispute with the institutions. After the negotiation failed, Wang sued the court and requested a full refund. The case was concluded in the first instance by Fangshan District People's Court of Beijing and in the second instance by Beijing Second Intermediate People's Court. The court held that the content of the "no refund for courses exceeding six months" contract was a pre drafted standard clause by a dance training institution for repeated use. From the actual performance of the agreement, the course needs to be attended by more than three people, otherwise the course will be cancelled on the same day. That is, it is not Wang's personal intention to decide whether to attend the course. If less than three people register for the course for a long time, the course period will inevitably be extended, which may exceed the agreed time in the agreement. This clause excludes Wang's primary right as a consumer to request a refund of fees and should be deemed invalid. The court, taking into account the unit price of the course and the fact that Wang has already taken the course, ruled that the institution should refund Wang over 1200 yuan in course fees. Judge Wang Yun, who handled the case, explained that when courts hear such disputes, they usually consider that the performance of such contracts often has strong personal attributes. If there is already a conflict between the consumer and the operator, continuing to perform may exacerbate the conflict and even cause greater damage. At this time, it is not appropriate to enforce the contract. Therefore, the court generally supports the consumer's claim to terminate the contract. (New Society)