Consumers in the dining, and catering based on the consumption of the contractual relationship, the contractual relationship should be based on the freedom of contract, the consumption of demand, consumers choose whether to buy tea, or accept the "tea" service. "service, in the consumer has no demand for the premise, the restaurant forced consumers to buy tea, and even do not drink tea to pay, completely restricting and depriving the consumer's independent choice and the right to fair trade.

Two, the format of the contract in the "overbearing terms"

Consumers in the handling of various types of membership cards, signing of subscriptions, service contracts, the operator will often give consumers to sign, by which the pre-drafted, and in the conclusion of the contract did not consult with the consumer's terms. "Interpretation of the right to the operator" is precisely the operator to use their dominant position in the market, contrary to the principle of fairness in transactions, restricting the consumer's right to interpretation of the contract content and methods, the provisions of the content of the invalid, and can not be interpreted to exempt the operator from the legal responsibility should be borne by the right to force.

Three, the restaurant mandatory "code" order

Consumers to the restaurant, some restaurants do not provide manual ordering, and even do not provide on-site menus, consumers can only pay attention to the public number or a small program after the "code order". Due to the complexity of smartphone operation, scanning code ordering is not universal. Elderly people and minors often need the assistance of others to complete the process of code ordering, and there may be personal information leakage behind the "code", and even payment security and other issues.

Four, the operator refused to provide services

Consumers purchased the services of the merchant in the form of a group purchase, but when booking, the merchant refused to provide services to the consumers on the grounds that the number of bookings was already full, exceeding the merchant's capacity to receive them, and so on. When negotiating with the consumer about the date of use, the merchant again excused himself for various reasons and did not provide the agreed service. In the end, the consumer to buy the group purchase coupon "hit the water".