Tell me which banks overlord clauses you know about?

I have encountered replacement cards that must be made up at designated places, and fixed deposits must be transferred to the bank where you deposited at the time.

If you leave the counter, the bank will not be responsible for any problems that will go wrong, and if they give you more money, you will have to go back after you leave, and you will go to the bank to solve it yourself.

What I don't like the most is that the bank stipulates that you have to make an appointment if you have more than tens of thousands of dollars, and it depends on their arrangement to withdraw your own money.

It's like losing a bank card, you have to go to the designated bank to reapply for it, and the time deposit must go to the place where it was deposited to get it, which is very inconvenient. But now they are slowly improving, and I believe that in the near future, they will get better and better.

In my opinion, I have seen the overlord clause in the bank, for example, you need to go to the designated place to handle the event.

The overlord clause of the bank I know has personal consumption loans, and the bank appoints the insurance company to purchase.

I think it's just some SMS notifications from your bank card, which you have to pay, otherwise your salary will be deducted.

If the repayment is not made within the stipulated period, he will directly seize your house.

That's a lot, but in some ways I really don't like it.

I think there are many banks whose overlord clauses are very unacceptable to me, for example, they are paying many banks their interest rates and many other things that many people can't accept.

I don't use bank cards very often now, but I only use them occasionally, so the overlord treaty for bank cards shouldn't have any effect on me.

The more money you have in the bank, the better you will be treated.

The so-called "overlord clause" refers to the unequal form of contracts, notices, statements, store notices or industry practices formulated by some operators to evade legal obligations and reduce their own responsibilities, restricting the rights of consumers and seriously infringing on the interests of the public.

1. Is it legal for the merchant to say that it is not returned or exchanged?

The merchant said that it is not legal to return or exchange.

Where the goods or services provided by proprietors do not meet the quality requirements, consumers may return them in accordance with law or by agreement of the parties, or require proprietors to perform obligations such as replacement or repair. If there is no statutory and agreed agreement, the consumer can return the goods within seven days from the date of receipt of the goods; If the statutory conditions for terminating the contract are met after seven days, the consumer may return the goods in a timely manner, and if the statutory conditions for terminating the contract are not met, the operator may be required to perform obligations such as replacement and repair. In addition, business operators must not make unfair or unreasonable provisions to consumers, such as excluding or restricting consumer rights, reducing or exempting business operators' liabilities, or increasing consumer responsibilities by means of standard clauses, notices, statements, store notices, etc., and must not use standard terms and technical means to compel transactions.

If the terms and conditions, notices, statements, store notices, etc. contain the contents listed above, the contents shall be invalid.

Where disputes over consumer rights and interests arise between consumers and business operators, they may be resolved through the following channels:

1. Negotiate and settle with the operator;

2. Request mediation by consumer associations or other mediation organizations established in accordance with law;

3. Complain to the relevant administrative departments;

4. Submit to an arbitration institution for arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement reached with the operator;

5. File a lawsuit with the people's court.

2. Is the contract of the overlord clause legally valid?

The contract with the Overlord clause has no legal effect. The contract with overlord clause makes the operator evade its obligations, deprives the consumer's rights, increases the consumer's responsibility, and makes the consumer's rights and obligations unequal. Therefore, the contract with the overlord clause harms the interests of one of the parties, violates the provisions of the law, and has no legal effect from a legal point of view.

3. Whether the standard clauses in the insurance contract are valid.

The so-called standard contract refers to the contract drawn up in advance by the operator for the purpose of repeated use. The terms of the standard contract that are not negotiated with the other party at the time of entering into the contract are unfair and impartial, and the contract terms are collectively referred to as overlord clauses.

There are some overlord clauses in standard contracts that exempt the operator, increase the liability of consumers, and exclude the rights of consumers, all of which are invalid.

Legal analysis: Overlord clauses include: 1. Clauses in which the party providing the clause unreasonably exempts or reduces its liability; 2. Clauses in which the party providing the clause unreasonably increases the liability of the other party; 3. The party providing the clause unreasonably restricts or excludes the main rights of the other party.

Legal basis: Article 497 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China shall be invalid under any of the following circumstances:

1) It has the invalid circumstances provided for in Section 3 of Chapter 6 of Part 1 of this Law and Article 506 of this Law;

2) The party providing the standard clauses unreasonably exempts or reduces its liability, increases the liability of the other party, or restricts the main rights of the other party;

3) The party providing the form group and the terms excludes the main rights of the other party.

Overlord clauses are as follows:

1. The clause that the party providing the clause unreasonably exempts or reduces its liability;

2. Clauses in which the party providing the clause unreasonably increases the liability of the other party;

3. Clauses in which the party providing the clause unreasonably restricts or excludes the main rights of the other party.

Is it valid to sign an Overlord contract.

The validity of the overlord contract cannot be generalized, and it should be analyzed in combination with the specific situation. First of all, if the party providing the standard contract fulfills the obligation of prompting and explaining at the time of signing the contract, and does not violate the prohibitions of the validity of laws and administrative regulations, the contract is valid. Secondly, if at the time of signing the contract, the party providing the standard contract not only fails to perform the obligation to prompt and explain, but also uses fraud and coercion to make the parties sign the contract, and the contract harms the interests of the state, or the contract harms the public interest, then the contract concluded in this case is invalid.

Legal basis: Article 497 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China.

In any of the following circumstances, the standard clause shall be invalid:

1) It has the invalid circumstances provided for in Section 3 of Chapter 6 of Part 1 of this Law and Article 506 of this Law;

2) The party providing the standard clauses unreasonably exempts or reduces its liability, increases the liability of the other party, or restricts the main rights of the other party;

3) The party providing the standard clauses excludes the main rights of the other party.

Article 498.

Where there is a dispute over the interpretation of standard clauses, they shall be interpreted in accordance with the common understanding. Where there are two or more interpretations of the standard clauses, an interpretation unfavorable to the party providing the standard clauses shall be made. Where standard terms and non-standard terms are inconsistent, non-standard terms shall be used.