Compiled from: Dongying District People's Court, Dongying City
 
Case review
On April 6, 2019, Wu signed a "Personal Training Course Service Agreement" with a Dongying fitness company. The agreement stipulated that the personal training course period was from April 6, 2019, to October 5, 2022, with unit prices of 270/260/380 yuan and a total course fee of 20,000 yuan; once purchased, personal training courses were non-refundable. After signing the agreement, Wu paid 20,000 yuan for the personal training fee and received a 2,000 yuan bonus. Wu received personal training from 2019 to 2021, consuming a total of 8,960 yuan, with a remaining prepayment of 11,040 yuan (excluding the 2,000 yuan bonus). Wu argued that due to reasons such as the fitness company changing personal trainers and Wu moving, the personal training courses were not completed as scheduled, and thus filed a lawsuit to terminate the agreement and demanded the fitness company refund 13,040 yuan. The fitness company claimed it had not breached the contract, disagreed with terminating the agreement, and argued that it should continue to be performed.

 
 

The Dongying District Court held that the agreement stipulated that consumers could not refund once the course was purchased. According to this stipulation, even if the service provider breached the contract or the consumer was dissatisfied with the personal training course, no refund was possible. This restriction excluded and limited the consumer's rights, being clearly unfair to the consumer, and should be deemed invalid under Article 26 of the Consumer Protection Law of the People's Republic of China. Meanwhile, although Wu claimed that the fitness company frequently changed personal trainers, constituting a breach of contract, Wu did not provide evidence to support this, and from the agreement's terms, Wu had not designated a specific personal trainer. Therefore, there was no evidence that the fitness company had breached the contract in performing the agreement.
 
Although the fitness company did not breach the contract and Wu had no legitimate reason to terminate the agreement, this did not mean the fitness company should not refund. The specific nature of the debt should also be considered comprehensively. Article 580 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China stipulates the principle for handling contract deadlocks, i.e., under specific circumstances, a party may request termination of the contract, but the breaching party should compensate the compliant party for resulting losses. In this case, the personal training course had a certain personal nature, making compulsory performance inappropriate, and it met the conditions of the above legal provision, so Wu could request termination of the agreement. Regarding the amount of refund, given that the fitness company had no breach in performing the agreement, and considering factors such as the agreement price, service period, the fitness company's costs, and obtainable benefits, from the principles of fairness and good faith, it was deemed appropriate for the fitness company to refund 60% of the fee. Additionally, considering the defendant fitness company had no breach, the 2,000 yuan bonus should not be included in the base amount. Accordingly, the first-instance judgment: 1. Terminate the "Personal Training Course Service Agreement" signed between plaintiff Wu and defendant Dongying fitness company on April 6, 2019; 2. The defendant fitness company shall refund plaintiff Wu 6,624 yuan within ten days from the effective date of this judgment; 3. Dismiss plaintiff Wu's other claims. After the first-instance judgment, neither party appealed, and it has now taken effect.
 
 
[1] "Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests"
Article 26, Paragraph 2  
Operators shall not use standard terms, notices, declarations, in-store announcements, or other means to exclude or limit consumers' rights, reduce or exempt operators' responsibilities, or increase consumers' responsibilities in ways that are unfair or unreasonable to consumers, nor shall they use standard terms with technical means to force transactions.
 
Civil Code of the People's Republic of China
Article 580  
If a party fails to perform a non-monetary obligation or performs a non-monetary obligation in a manner inconsistent with the agreement, the other party may request performance, except in any of the following circumstances:
[1] Performance is legally or factually impossible;
[2] The subject matter of the debt is unsuitable for compulsory performance or the cost of performance is excessively high;
[3] The creditor has not requested performance within a reasonable period.
Where any of the excepted circumstances specified in the preceding paragraph prevents the purpose of the contract from being achieved, the people's court or an arbitration institution may, upon a party's request, terminate the contractual rights and obligations, provided that liability for breach of contract is not affected.
 
 
[1] The author's perspective
[4] With the development of the social economy and the significant improvement in residents' living standards, people are paying more and more attention to health, and many young people favor gyms and personal training sessions. While the fitness industry is booming, it has also led to some disputes. From judicial practice, under normal circumstances, such disputes mainly arise due to operators' breach of contract, such as changing personal trainers or ceasing business, making resolution relatively straightforward. However, it is rare in practice to handle cases where the operator has not breached the contract, but the consumer has no legitimate reason and is unwilling to continue fulfilling the remaining term of the personal training course. Although such disputes involve small amounts of money, they are related to people's livelihoods. While focusing on protecting consumers' legitimate rights and interests, the principle of good faith must also be considered to balance the rights and obligations of all parties.