27 Jul 2008

Who is for the hotel's "King terms" pay

In recent years, some hotel restaurants, "declined its own Wine" and collected "open bottles of fees" and other practices, the Consumer Association has long been recognized as damage to the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, "King clause." But now, some hotels still do not think Gaihui, continue to push these strong, "King clause." So, who is in the hotel for the "King terms" pay for it »

"King terms" yes "to the" backing

Big days hotel Hohhot in Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region is a strong push "refused to drink its own" one of the hotel. Recently, this reporter here dining, health services, told reporters that if its own drinks to be charged 50 yuan, "a bottle costs." In the hotel's directory of single-price drinks, wine prices are much higher than the market retail price. As for the Metro Hotel, Inner Mongolia Hotel, Air China Building, Zhaojun, and other high-end hotels, some liquor is cheaper than the big day hotel also high.






According to local industry sources, Wine is the high profits of some hotel restaurants refused to drink the main reason for its own customers. Currently, Hohhot general hotel restaurants Wine profits for the wholesale price of 70 to 80 percent, beverage profits in the 200-300 percent. As market competition intensifies, the restaurant industry's profitability point in weakening the meals, drinks sales commitment to a large number of the source of profits. For a restaurant, told reporters: "We rely on half of the profits earned from selling liquor water."

Because of this, now the overwhelming majority of hotel restaurants are still in strong push "declined its own Wine" and receive "a bottle costs" such as "King clause." And some of the restaurant industry associations to "line regulation" as an excuse to "King terms" backing. Sichuan restaurant industry, Lucheng District of Wenzhou City Food Association have all introduced "declined its own Wine" and receive "a bottle costs", "to regulate industry." China Cuisine Association have also publicly express their views in support of catering companies charge a fee of bottles.

Hotel restaurants generally "consortium" backing

Although the hotel restaurant-pushing "King terms", but is inconceivable that they can attract customers, and the hotel restaurants open more. Why is this » Recently, this reporter in an interview with the Consumer Association of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, responsible person.

According to The person in charge of some hotel restaurants continue to push strong, "King terms" the main reason is the "consortium" pay. These "consortium" administrative organs, institutions, enterprises, but also wealthy, such as the boss. Therefore, they look, not only continue but also a flourishing.

At the same time, hotel restaurants, spending public funds into major financial resources. Most of the consumers of public funds generously hand, when consumer prices do not ask, regardless of the price level of wine. As the "powerful" pay the money, these hotel restaurants not to receive general customer service oriented, "King clause" to continue to exist.

In addition, like some kind of point guesthouses, hotels, often with the tourism sector "marriage", was designated as "resort hotel" and "tourism hotel," Wang Li sent to the tourism sector "be slaughtered lambs." However, this "marriage" is not "white" Alliance, guesthouses, hotels, a portion of profits to the tourism sector commission. In the interests of the drive, the tourism sector in these hotels, the Hotel guests, it is also allowing these hotels, hotel charges "for inter-Ya" to "bottle costs." As a result, those with the tourism sector "marriage" of restaurants, food prices than ordinary hotels, a hotel than twice, in particular, beverages, higher prices.

"King clause" should be limited

The hotel restaurant its own strong push "King clause", has attracted a lot of consumer dissatisfaction, they hope the relevant state departments should be given to this restriction.

Consumers Association of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region in charge of monitoring complaints that the first hotel restaurant through the implementation of the "King clause" by Wine profiteering does not make sense. Because the meals in the production process is labor costs, there is still a certain loss. Wine production is not the hotel restaurant, when the only input into the drinks of some short-distance transport costs, and expensive does not make sense. This was followed by the "King terms" the practice clearly illegal, because the hotel restaurant through mandatory spending, profiteering from the vast number of consumers. The so-called "line regulation" depriving consumers of the autonomous right to choose and the right to a fair trading, consumer spending limit freedom.

Inner Mongolia Sino law firm lawyers Zhaohai Wen said that many hotel restaurants strong push "King clause" is not legitimate, such an act is profit for the purpose of developing the non-price measures, or price, price measures have violated the "no - While competition law "and" Consumer Protection Law. " "Regulation will" not go against laws and regulations, declined carrying drinks, to receive "a bottle costs" such as Diantang notices have no legal authority, the consumers have no legal effect, it should be regarded as invalid.

A strong push on the hotel restaurant, "King terms" the practice of consulting the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Price Trade and Industry Bureau. Price Commerce and Industry, said a staff, the restaurant industry's "King clause" should be limited. Although the current catering service charges from the independent pricing enterprises, implementation of market regulation. However, the catering enterprises in the development of service charges at specific prices, we must abide by relevant state laws and regulations, fraud out Zaike, or consumers can price the business sector to complaints.

Room to buy 501 of the 502 rooms Zaban

"The first payment, Maifang pledged that 501 rooms, to the second payment, the seller has 501 rooms that have been sold to others, now only in the same price with 502 rooms." Recently, consumers Hsieh Chun-liang buying houses because of a dispute complaint to the press. The buyer that the seller does not fulfil the first time on the purchase agreement, the seller and the buyer expressed doubts about the authenticity of the agreement, the two sides stalemate for more than a year no fruit. Bar that, we must first identify the authenticity of the agreement, and then determine the validity of the agreement.






Room 501 is to buy the 502 rooms has become

Hsieh Chun-liang told reporters that in August 2006, he bought a new Yongjia County Sheng opened the construction companies on behalf of the Town in Yongjia County in the new century Garden of a house, and the company responsible for the boss Chen Norfolk individuals signed a purchase Agreement. Agreement agreed: Norfolk Chen Chun-liang Xie guarantee for the provision of a placement, the address of the Town in Yongjia County in the new century Garden before the placement of a village 501 rooms, temporary admission and his 100,000 yuan for the purchase of the first phase.

July 2007, Chen Chun-liang Norfolk to thank Fangkuan delivery of the second period when he will request the original agreement on the purchase of a 501 room for a replacement of 502 rooms. Hsieh Chun-liang, their original order is 501 rooms, purchased 501 rooms compared with 502 rooms, good lighting, large area, so I do not agree with the replacement.

The seller said the agreement is not signed

Recently, this reporter visited the said agreement on the Town in Yongjia County in the new century Garden before the resettlement of the village, the building has not yet been completed.

Afterward, reporters contacted Chen Norfolk. According to Chen Norfolk, said he did not sign-and-a-purchase agreement, Hsieh Chun-liang, an agreement on the buildings, the Housing is not, he wrote, he expressed doubts about the authenticity of the agreement. And he has not received Hsieh Chun-liang reservations advances. As Hsieh Chun-liang's receipt in hand, Chen also said he did not Norfolk signature, not Fingerprinting.

And Hsieh Chun-liang said that at that time to buy a house with six people, in August 2006 signing of the agreement and an agreement exists. As for the outstanding advances booking more credible, he also one-on-hand Chen Norfolk partners signed a handprint on the word of receipts. To this end, they failed to resolve a stalemate for more than a year.

It is reported that consumer Yongjia County Commission in the investigation, but the two sides have yet to reach a conciliation agreement.

Counsel: first to identify genuine and fake agreement, to see whether or not effective

According to Zhejiang Jia Rui Cheng Yang Leisure law firm of lawyers, assuming the buyer forged agreement, the agreement null and void and not binding on the seller, the seller need not perform in accordance with the agreement. If the agreement is true, then judge whether the two sides signed a contract with the force of law.

If the nature of the land allocated for state-owned, according to the transfer of its housing is required to have the approval of the People's Government approval, without the approval of the contract null and void and can not continue to fulfill the contract, the seller for the return of the money collected, the contract is invalid if the fault Is the seller, the buyer can also claim compensation. Avoid the effect of the contract, the seller, the unauthorized change is breach of contract, the buyer may request to perform the original contract.