Respondent: (mxr612, and personal information) Petitioner: Chengdu Xinbaihu Technology Co., Ltd., Unified Social Credit Code: 91510107MAD34Y8P35, Address: Room 3-01, No. 102, Group 5, Majiahe Community, Jinhuaqiao Street, Wuhou District, Chengdu.

Facts and Reasons:

The respondent placed an order on March 29, 2024, with a merchant on the Fliggy platform (i.e., the petitioner) Chengdu Rongcheng Changxing Car Rental Franchise Store ("Chengdu Rongcheng Changxing Wuyou Network Information Technology Co., Ltd.") to rent a Toyota Corolla "Chuan G450158", and also purchased the Fliggy platform "Basic Service". After the respondent placed the order on the Fliggy platform, the petitioner contacted the respondent by phone and requested a vehicle change due to vehicle restrictions. Then the respondent arrived at the store of Chengdu Rongcheng Zhonghe Car Rental Co., Ltd. at B2, Pengruili East Station Plaza, No. 5333 Jinxiu Avenue Section, Middle Ring Road, Chenghua District, Chengdu, signed a car rental contract offline, and learned that the vehicle had been changed to a Volkswagen Bora "Chuan GAK056". The petitioner's store staff stated that the platform "insurance" coverage was insufficient and required the purchase of an additional 50 yuan per day car paint insurance provided by the petitioner. The respondent, at the petitioner's request, paid for this insurance and scanned the petitioner's QR code on the spot to transfer 250 yuan. On April 1, 2024, the respondent drove "Chuan GAK056" and at the curve at 2011 km + 400 m on National Highway 213, due to improper operation, the vehicle drove into the roadside drainage ditch, causing vehicle damage. The respondent immediately called the police and obtained a road traffic accident determination letter (summary procedure), and informed the petitioner and the Fliggy platform, requesting the petitioner to notify the insurance company. During police questioning, the respondent discovered that the petitioner had not placed the vehicle registration certificate in the car, so requested the petitioner to provide a photo of the vehicle registration certificate. According to the vehicle registration certificate provided by the petitioner, the respondent found that the vehicle's use nature was registered as "non-operational", and it was registered under the name of Chengdu Xinlu Hangtong Business Service Co., Ltd. Regarding the respondent's request to file an insurance claim, the petitioner's staff stated that a "deposit" of 20,000 yuan must be paid before filing the insurance claim. The respondent refused on the grounds that it did not comply with platform rules and contract agreements. Finally, the petitioner requested a tow truck to tow the vehicle to a repair shop designated by the petitioner, and then handle insurance and compensation matters. The respondent then contacted a nearby road rescue company, Maoxian Xinxin Automobile Rescue Service Center, to tow the vehicle back to the parking lot of Maoxian Road Rescue Company. The Fliggy platform stated that it did not support the respondent and the petitioner reaching an offline transaction, and began to coordinate. At noon on the day of the accident, the respondent, as requested by the petitioner, towed the vehicle back to Chengdu, and the respondent advanced 3,100 yuan for towing fees (including 800 yuan from the accident site to Maoxian and 2,300 yuan from Maoxian to the petitioner's designated location). In the afternoon, the road rescue company dispatched a vehicle to tow the vehicle to the repair shop designated by the petitioner. After the incident, the respondent actively communicated with the petitioner regarding damage assessment and claims, and requested the petitioner and the Fliggy platform to provide the relevant insurance company name and policy information, including vehicle commercial insurance, the "basic protection" provided by the petitioner, and the car paint insurance purchased by the petitioner on behalf. The petitioner has not been able to provide the policy or follow up on the damage assessment since the incident, but has repeatedly demanded direct payment of various deposits, including vehicle damage, downtime fees, depreciation fees, insurance premium increases, etc. The respondent refused offline transactions and requested that it be handled by the Fliggy platform, while the petitioner refused to communicate with the respondent or the Fliggy platform and chose to directly sue. Similar car rental extortion cases occur frequently in society, and Chengdu has recently seen public opinion pointing to the car rental industry. The petitioner and other vehicle rental industry practitioners exploit regulatory loopholes and, with their strong position as operators, maliciously infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of consumers like the respondent. The respondent is a college student who has just turned twenty and has no clear understanding of the dangers of society. I earnestly request the court to carefully consider the social impact and make a ruling in accordance with the law. Now the respondent makes the following defense opinions regarding the petitioner's claims:

I. The petitioner's publication of content-specific commercial advertisements regarding "Basic Service" on the Fliggy platform should be regarded as a valid contract from the time the respondent placed the order and paid. Matters involving the calculation of vehicle damage compensation should be based on the petitioner's promotional content on the Fliggy platform.

The petitioner's publication of content-specific commercial advertisements regarding "Basic Service" on the Fliggy platform constitutes a contract offer. The respondent's order and payment on the Fliggy platform should be regarded as the expression of intent to accept the offer, and the contract is established upon the effectiveness of the acceptance. The petitioner should perform the contract. The "Vehicle Damage" section of the "Basic Service" contract stipulates: "For losses to the vehicle itself caused by natural disasters (except earthquakes), accidents, or other insured events: Coverage: actual value of the vehicle; Insurance company and car dealer bear: portion above 1500 yuan (excluding wheels); Customer bears: less than or equal to 1500 yuan (borne according to actual circumstances)". At the same time, the "Depreciation Fee" section stipulates: "The depreciation fee is based on the vehicle damage and the insurance company's assessed loss amount. The depreciation fee standard is: free for amounts within 5000 yuan; for amounts above 5000 yuan, 20% of the total repair cost." The petitioner used "Chengdu Rongcheng Changxing Wuyou Network Information Technology Co., Ltd." on the Fliggy platform, but used "Chengdu Xinbaihu Technology Co., Ltd." to sign the "Chengdu Xinbaihu Technology Co., Ltd. Car Rental Contract" with the respondent, causing the respondent to have a major misunderstanding of the civil subject of the contract. The respondent chose the Fliggy platform because it has a certain degree of regulatory capability over merchants, but the petitioner deliberately used a different entity and also changed the rental vehicle, intending to evade obligations under the same contract and harm the respondent's legitimate rights and interests. On the other hand, the calculation method for vehicle damage compensation in the standard contract "Chengdu Xinbaihu Technology Co., Ltd. Car Rental Contract" provided by the petitioner is inconsistent with the calculation method for vehicle damage compensation promoted on the Fliggy platform, but the petitioner did not fulfill its duty to inform, deliberately causing the respondent's major misunderstanding of the existence of relevant clauses. Therefore, where there are disputes over the calculation of vehicle damage compensation, the content of the Fliggy platform contract shall prevail.

II. Several standard clauses in the "Chengdu Xinbaihu Technology Co., Ltd. Car Rental Contract" unreasonably increase the respondent's obligations, and the petitioner did not fulfill its duty to prompt, so the relevant clauses should be invalid.

The "Chengdu Xinbaihu Technology Co., Ltd. Car Rental Contract" is a consumer service contract. Article 6, Paragraph 2 of the contract states: "The lessee shall immediately call the police and notify the insurance company and the lessor after an accident or traffic accident involving the rented vehicle. The lessee shall bear the economic losses not covered by insurance claims and the lessor's related economic losses (including but not limited to the estimated cost of increased insurance premiums for the next year due to insurance claims)" and Article 6, Paragraph 2 states: "If the vehicle is involved in an insured accident, the lessee shall bear the accelerated depreciation fee of the vehicle and the insurance deductible (accelerated depreciation is equivalent to 40% of the total repair cost of this accident)", which violates Article 26, Paragraph 2 of the "Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests": "Operators shall not use standard clauses, notices, statements, shop notices, etc., to make provisions that exclude or restrict consumer rights, reduce or exempt operator liability, increase consumer liability, or otherwise unfair and unreasonable to consumers." Moreover, the petitioner, as the provider of the standard clauses, did not mark them in obvious font in the contract and did not fulfill its duty to inform, so such clauses should be deemed not to be part of the valid contract.

III. The vehicle repair cost claimed by the petitioner is too high, and no invoices, payment records, or other evidence have been provided to prove that the loss actually occurred, nor is there evidence proving the causal relationship between the loss and the accident involved. The court is requested to dismiss the claim for vehicle repair costs.

First, the petitioner has no evidence to prove the actual amount of vehicle repair costs paid, and no evidence to prove the relationship between the vehicle repair and the respondent's accident. The "Repair Work Order" provided by the petitioner cannot reflect the original damage condition of the vehicle, and lacks key information such as repair personnel and customer confirmation, and no payment records, invoices, or other actual payment information have been provided, so it cannot prove that it actually paid the vehicle repair costs involved. Second, the respondent has fulfilled the obligation to request the petitioner to file an insurance claim and conduct damage assessment, but the petitioner refused to file the insurance claim, resulting in the inability to assess damage. Moreover, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that it participated in insurance in accordance with the law. However, regardless of the reason why the insurance cannot be claimed, it is caused by the petitioner's failure to fulfill its obligations as an operator, and the corresponding adverse consequences should be borne by the petitioner. If the vehicle has now been repaired, it is difficult to accurately assess the original damage condition, and the consequences should also be borne by the petitioner. Third, the unreasonable towing fee advanced by the respondent should be borne by the petitioner. The reasonable towing fee should be regarded as a loss arising from the vehicle accident, included in the total vehicle loss, and subsequently shared according to the allocation of responsibility. According to common sense, vehicle repair should be carried out at the repair shop closest to the accident site. In this case, the towing fee required for the vehicle repair shop closest to the accident site is only 800 yuan. However, the petitioner specifically requested that the vehicle be finally towed back to Chengdu to a repair shop designated by the petitioner, incurring an additional towing fee of 2,300 yuan. This is an additional expense incurred by the petitioner without reasonable grounds and should be borne by the petitioner. The reasonable towing fee of 800 yuan should be included in the total vehicle loss involved and subsequently shared according to the allocation of responsibility. The respondent has advanced 3,100 yuan for automobile rescue fees, which should be deducted from the compensation amount the respondent should bear. Fourth, there is a handwritten additional clause in the "Chengdu Xinbaihu Technology Co., Ltd. Car Rental Contract": "The renter has purchased car paint protection, does not need to bear paint scratch repair, but needs to bear depreciation and downtime." Therefore, the car paint repair cost should be deducted from the loss amount.

IV. The vehicle involved does not meet the circumstances under which "vehicle downtime fee" can be claimed. The court is requested to dismiss the petitioner's claim for vehicle downtime fee.

The registered use nature of the vehicle involved is "non-operational". According to Article 12 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Road Traffic Accident Damage Compensation Cases": "If a road traffic accident causes the following property losses, and the party requests the infringer to compensate, the people's court shall support it: (3) reasonable downtime losses incurred by vehicles legally engaged in business activities such as cargo transport and passenger transport due to inability to engage in corresponding business activities." However, the vehicle involved is not an operational vehicle, and the vehicle does not meet the condition of "engaged in business activities". Furthermore, the "Repair Work Order" provided by the petitioner cannot prove the actual repair time of the vehicle, and its claim for the amount and time of vehicle downtime fee has no factual basis. In summary, the petitioner's claim for vehicle downtime fee has no factual or legal basis, and the court is requested to dismiss its claim for vehicle downtime fee in accordance with the law.

V. The depreciation fee claimed by the petitioner is too high and has no reasonable basis. The court is requested to dismiss the claim for depreciation fee.

Article 585 of the "Civil Code" stipulates: "The parties may agree that if one party breaches the contract, it shall pay a certain amount of liquidated damages to the other party according to the breach, or may agree on the calculation method for compensation for losses arising from the breach. If the agreed liquidated damages are lower than the losses caused, the people's court or arbitration institution may increase them upon the request of the party; if the agreed liquidated damages are excessively higher than the losses caused, the people's court or arbitration institution may appropriately reduce them upon the request of the party. If the parties agree on liquidated damages for delayed performance, the breaching party shall also perform the debt after paying the liquidated damages." Although there are provisions on depreciation fees in the standard contract, the amount should not deviate too much from the depreciation loss in general value judgment. The vehicle involved had a mileage of 26,458 kilometers at the time of pickup, and there is no conclusive evidence to prove that the residual value of the vehicle at that time suffered depreciation after the accident. At the same time, depreciation fees should avoid double calculation with vehicle losses. Parts in repair involve replacement of old with new, and even if there is value depreciation, the issue of offsetting the profit and loss of replacing new parts should be considered. The Supreme People's Court clearly stated in the "Reply on the Proposal on Compensation for Vehicle Depreciation Loss in Traffic Accidents": "At present, we hold a cautious attitude towards compensation for this loss and tend not to support it in principle. Of course, in a few special and extreme circumstances, appropriate compensation may also be considered, but it must be carefully considered and strictly controlled." In this case, the vehicle is not a luxury car, new car, or other "few special and extreme circumstances", and the accident involved is relatively minor with little impact on the vehicle. The depreciation fee claimed by the petitioner is too high, so the "depreciation fee" claimed by the petitioner should not be supported.

VI. The petitioner concealed that the vehicle attribute is "non-operational" and did not provide the vehicle registration certificate with the vehicle, which constitutes defective performance of the contract and should legally reduce the amount of compensation for losses.

First, Article 3, Paragraph 4 of the "Chengdu Xinbaihu Technology Co., Ltd. Car Rental Contract" stipulates: "The lessor shall provide the vehicle registration certificate and road maintenance fee payment receipt." At the same time, according to Article 12, Paragraph 3 of the "Measures for the Administration of Small and Micro Bus Rental Operations": "Small and micro bus rental operators shall also comply with the following provisions: (3) Equip the rented small and micro bus with the motor vehicle registration certificate." The petitioner should have equipped the vehicle with the registration certificate, but in fact did not, which constitutes partial defective contractual obligation and should bear liability for breach of contract. Second, the registered use nature of the vehicle involved is "non-operational", which violates Article 6, Paragraph 2 of the "Measures for the Administration of Small and Micro Bus Rental Operations": "Small and micro buses put into operation shall pass inspection and be registered with the use nature of rental (hereinafter referred to as rental small and micro buses)" and Article 6 of the "Implementation Regulations of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China": "For registered motor vehicles with any of the following circumstances, the owner of the motor vehicle shall apply to the traffic management department of the public security organ that registered the motor vehicle for change registration: (5) Operational motor vehicles changed to non-operational motor vehicles or non-operational motor vehicles changed to operational motor vehicles" mandatory provisions. The petitioner's use of a non-operational vehicle for rental purposes constitutes a change in the vehicle's use nature, resulting in differences in the operation management and maintenance methods of the vehicle involved compared with rental vehicles, increasing the risk of vehicle damage and the risk of insurance claim rejection, directly and indirectly causing the occurrence and expansion of the accident and losses. The petitioner avoided this situation during the transaction, which should constitute negative fraud and defective performance. As a consumer, the respondent generally understood that vehicles put into the rental market should comply with relevant standards, and was unaware of the above vehicle use nature and insurance purchase situation. The petitioner deliberately concealed the vehicle's operational nature and insurance situation, had certain fault in the performance of the contract, and should bear partial responsibility for the damage results after the accident involved. According to Article 592 of the "Civil Code": "If both parties breach the contract, each shall bear corresponding responsibility. If one party's breach causes losses to the other party, and the other party is at fault for the occurrence of the losses, the corresponding amount of compensation for losses may be reduced." Therefore, the petitioner, as the motor vehicle custodian, should bear part of the vehicle losses.

VII. After the accident, the petitioner did not continue to provide services to the respondent. The court is requested to order the petitioner to return to the respondent the vehicle rental fee for the unprovided service portion of 206 yuan.

According to Article 12, Paragraph 5 of the "Measures for the Administration of Small and Micro Bus Rental Operations": "Small and micro bus rental operators shall also comply with the following provisions: (5) Establish a rescue service system, and when the rented small and micro bus breaks down or has an accident during the rental period, provide rescue and vehicle replacement services in accordance with the contract" mandatory provisions, the petitioner, as a small and micro bus rental operator, should provide rescue and vehicle replacement services but did not. The petitioner should bear the automobile rescue costs and the respondent's losses during the period when the vehicle could not be used. The respondent and the petitioner agreed to pick up the vehicle at 18:00 on March 29, 2024, and return it at 18:00 on April 3, 2024. Actually, the vehicle was picked up at 20:03 on March 29, 2024, and the vehicle involved was returned at 18:23 on April 1, 2024. After returning the vehicle, the respondent did not use the petitioner's vehicle, and the petitioner did not provide vehicle replacement services. Therefore, the petitioner should return to the respondent the vehicle rental fee, basic service fee, and car paint insurance for two days, totaling 206 yuan ((38+15+50)*2=206 yuan).

VIII. The respondent fully performed the contract from beginning to end, while the petitioner committed contract breach and promise breach, and had a poor communication attitude and abused litigation rights. The court is requested to order the petitioner to bear all litigation costs, attorney fees, and travel expenses in this case.

First, according to Article 7, Paragraph 6 of the "Chengdu Xinbaihu Technology Co., Ltd. Car Rental Contract": "Litigation costs and the attorney agency fees of the observant party shall be borne by the breaching party as losses of the observant party." The respondent performed in accordance with the contract from the beginning, while the petitioner committed defective performance and partial performance, so the petitioner should bear the litigation costs and the respondent's attorney fees. Second, according to the "Letter of Commitment" signed between the petitioner and Fliggy: "If the merchant fails to fulfill the above commitments (the merchant has obtained all permits, filings, or other licenses required to carry out car rental business) and causes losses to Fliggy users or Fliggy suffers administrative penalties, administrative compulsory (enforcement) measures, user or third-party claims, or other losses, the merchant shall compensate Fliggy users or Fliggy for all losses suffered thereby (such as administrative fines, litigation costs, attorney fees, travel expenses, etc.)." Therefore, the litigation costs, attorney fees, and travel expenses in this case should be borne by the petitioner. Finally, the respondent performed rights and obligations in accordance with the contract from beginning to end, while the petitioner continuously demanded that the respondent pay additional fees not agreed upon since the accident, and did not reasonably communicate with the respondent regarding the specific amount of vehicle damage, but chose to abuse litigation rights and directly sue, and should bear all litigation costs, attorney fees, and travel expenses in this case.