Precedent No. 42/2021/AL was adopted by the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court on February 23, 2021, and published under Decision No. 42/QD-CA dated March 12, 2021, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.
1. What is a precedent?
Precedents are arguments and rulings in legally effective judgments and decisions of the Courts regarding specific cases selected by the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court and published by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court as precedents for Courts to study and apply in adjudication. (Article 1 of Resolution 04/2019/NQ-HDTP)
A selected precedent must meet the following criteria:
– It has the value of clarifying legal provisions that have different interpretations, analyzing and explaining legal issues and events, and pointing out principles, guidelines for handling, and legal norms to be applied in a specific case or demonstrating justice for issues not yet specifically regulated by law;
– It is of a standard nature;
– It has guidance value for the uniform application of the law in adjudication.
2. Precedent No. 42/2021/AL on the right of consumers to choose the Court to resolve disputes in case of standard form contracts containing arbitration agreements
2.1. Source of the Precedent
First-instance civil judgment No. 54/2018/DS-ST dated November 16, 2018, of the People’s Court of Nha Trang City, Khanh Hoa Province, regarding the civil case “Dispute over a service contract” between the plaintiffs, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Long T and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S, and the defendant, V Resort Company Limited.
Location of the precedent content:
Paragraph 9 of the “Court’s Assessment” section
2.2. Overview of the Precedent content
– Case Situation:
A standard form contract concluded with a consumer contains a clause choosing foreign arbitration to resolve disputes. When a dispute arises, the consumer files a lawsuit in a Vietnamese Court.
– Legal Solution:
In this case, it must be determined that the consumer did not choose arbitration and has the right to choose the Vietnamese Court for resolution.
Legal provisions related to the precedent:
Article 38 of the Law on Protection of Consumers’ Rights of Vietnam 2010;
Article 17 of the Law on Commercial Arbitration of Vietnam 2010;
Clause 3 Article 26, Clause 1 Article 35 of the Civil Procedure Code of Vietnam 2015;
Clause 5 Article 4 of Resolution No. 01/2014/NQ-HDTP dated March 20, 2014, of the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court guiding the implementation of several provisions of the Law on Commercial Arbitration.
Keywords of the precedent:
“Standard form contract with agreement to choose foreign Arbitration”; “Consumer”; “Choosing Vietnamese Court”.
CASE CONTENT:
According to the lawsuit petition dated December 08, 2017, the self-declaration, the conciliation minutes, and at the trial, the authorized representative of the plaintiffs, Mr. Tran Duc P, presented:
On February 26, 2017, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Long T and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S entered into Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 with V Resort Company Limited.
Accordingly, the value of the vacation ownership contract was 388,110,000 VND; vacation week: Week 16; Unit type: Type A.
As of March 15, 2017, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Long T and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S had deposited 300,488,000 VND.
At the time of signing the contract, due to limited time, Mrs. T and Mr. S did not carefully read the signed vacation ownership contract. On April 26, 2017, after receiving an email from V Resort Company Limited, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Long T and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S carefully reviewed the contract and found that some clauses were unreasonable, so they proactively proposed terminating the contract, but this was not accepted by V Resort Company Limited.
Therefore, to protect their rights, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Long T and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S filed a lawsuit in Court with the following content: Requesting the Court to declare Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017, null and void and to return the paid amount of 300,488,000 VND to Mrs. Nguyen Thi Long T and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S.
For the following reasons:
– V Resort Company Limited deceived customers by opening tourism seminars but not following the program content; regarding the project investor being an Israeli billionaire, Mr. I; regarding the investment capital to create trust for those wanting to buy vacation ownership to sign contracts and pay deposits.
– V Resort Company Limited advertised that the product was designed according to a model that won an Asia-Pacific award, but when constructed, it did not follow the advertised model; the advertised model and the actual model were not the same; the vacation apartment was only designed for two people, but advertised for 5 people; the project is located in Nha Trang.
– V Resort Company Limited violated legal prohibitions as a foreign-invested enterprise not allowed to take Vietnamese people abroad; disposing of deposit money when it did not belong to them.
– The construction progress and official operation of the project were slower than committed, causing damage to those who purchased vacation ownership.
According to the self-declaration, conciliation minutes, and at the trial, the authorized representative of the defendant, Mrs. Pham Thi Kieu H, presented:
On February 26, 2017, V Resort Company Limited entered into Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 with Mrs. Nguyen Thi Long T and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S. The form and content of the contract are completely legal. The persons signing the contract had full capacity and authority, were not coerced, and voluntarily signed this contract.
V Resort Company Limited does not agree with the reasons provided by the plaintiffs as grounds to claim that Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 is null and void.
Because:
Firstly, the plaintiffs’ claim that the company deceived consumers is a distorted assessment based on subjective opinions. The company affirms that it did not fabricate or provide false information to consumers. V Company has 02 capital contributors, including Mr. Duong Tuan A and E Company. In which, E Company is among the enterprises controlled and owned by Mr. I and his businesses. Thus, Mr. I is an investor of the Company, investing through companies under his control.
The initially registered charter capital was 105 billion VND and is currently 486 billion VND. This is the capital contribution according to the investor’s commitment to the project company, in accordance with Vietnamese law. The investment capital of the project is 300 million USD or potentially higher, which is the estimated investment value of the entire project including but not limited to: land rent, investment costs, construction, management, operation of the project, management costs, office costs…
Secondly, at the introductory session, the Company clearly explained that this was a vacation purchase activity, not a real estate purchase, so there was no confusion regarding the contract; when working with customers, the Company explained and clearly stated in the contract which vacation week was being purchased and in which type of hotel.
Thirdly, our company does not conduct taking customers abroad; here, if vacationers do not like staying domestically, they can exchange vacations with other customers to go abroad. This is only the activity of the customers; our company does not conduct business in taking Vietnamese people abroad for tourism but only provides support to customers.
Fourthly, regarding the deposit, the law does not restrict agreements on the use of deposits. The Company’s purpose for using the deposit does not violate legal prohibitions.
Fifthly, regarding construction progress and the official Opening date, it is clearly regulated in Article 8 of the Contract, which is 36 months from the date of issuance of the final construction permit of the project and the right to extend for another 6 months. Currently, the final permit was issued in October 2018.
If the plaintiffs continue to perform the signed vacation ownership contract, the defendant may consider a price reduction or support other benefits.
Speaking at the trial, the representative of the People’s Procuracy of Nha Trang City concluded: The People’s Court of Nha Trang City has correctly followed the order and procedures of the civil procedure law during the case resolution and at the trial; the parties fully exercised their rights and obligations during the proceedings; the service of procedural documents was conducted validly. However, to clarify whether V Resort Company Limited is permitted to trade or transfer vacation ownership rights, it is requested that the Trial Panel temporarily suspend the trial to collect more documents.
COURT’S ASSESSMENT:
[1] After studying the documents in the case file examined at the trial and based on the results of the arguments at the trial, the Trial Panel assesses:
[2] At the trial, the representative of the People’s Procuracy of Nha Trang City requested to temporarily suspend the trial to collect documents to determine whether V Resort Company Limited is permitted to transfer apartments or vacation rights before completing the project. This request by the Procuracy representative is unnecessary because this is not a transfer contract related to real estate, but a service contract in the field of tourism, and essentially a deposit contract for vacation ownership. Up to the time of the trial, there is no document from any competent authority restricting the right to take deposits for vacation ownership by V Resort Company Limited. Therefore, the Trial Panel continues to try the case according to general regulations.
[3] On December 17, 2017, Mr. Nguyen Hoang S and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Long T sued V Resort Company Limited at the People’s Court of Nha Trang City, requesting to declare Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017, null and void and compelling V Resort Company Limited to return the deposited and paid amount of 300,488,000 VND. This is the amount Mr. Nguyen Hoang S and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Long T deposited to own vacations from V Resort Company Limited.
[4] At the trial, the plaintiffs maintained their lawsuit request, asking the Court to declare Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017, null and void and compel V Resort Company Limited to return the deposited and paid amount of 300,488,000 VND.
[5] Thus, the disputed legal relationship is identified as a “Service Contract” as regulated in Article 513 of the Civil Code 2015 and Article 14 of the Law on Protection of Consumers’ Rights.
[6] In Article 12.3 of Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017, the parties agreed to choose the dispute resolution body and method as the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) according to the SIAC arbitration rules effective at the time of dispute resolution.
[7] However, Article 17 of the Law on Commercial Arbitration and the guidance in Clause 5 Article 4 of Resolution No. 01/2014/NQ-HDTP dated March 20, 2014, of the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court regulate unenforceable arbitration agreements:
[8] “A goods or service provider and a consumer have an arbitration agreement clause recorded in the general conditions for providing goods or services prepared by the provider as regulated in Article 17 of the Law on Commercial Arbitration, but when a dispute arises, the consumer does not agree to choose Arbitration to resolve the dispute”.
[9] Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 is a standard form contract provided by the service provider, pre-drafted with an arbitration clause; now the plaintiff, who is a consumer, does not agree to choose arbitration and requests the People’s Court of Nha Trang City to resolve it, which is consistent with Article 38 of the Law on Protection of Consumers’ Rights, Article 17 of the Law on Commercial Arbitration, and the guidance in Clause 5 Article 4 of Resolution No. 01/2014/NQ-HDTP dated March 20, 2014, of the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court. Therefore, the People’s Court of Nha Trang City accepting and resolving the dispute is within its jurisdiction according to Clause 3 Article 26 and Clause 1 Article 35 of the Civil Procedure Code and within the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit as regulated in Article 429 of the Civil Code 2015 and Article 184 of the Civil Procedure Code.
[10] Considering Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017, signed between V Resort Company Limited and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Long T, it is found that: The person directly signing the contract as the representative for V Resort Company Limited was Mr. Le Huu B, Head of Finance at the Representative Office of V Resort Company Limited in Ho Chi Minh City, and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Long T. Mr. Le Huu B was not the legal representative of V Resort Company Limited, but at the time of the conclusion, the legal representative of V Resort Company Limited had an authorization letter dated February 01, 2017, for Mr. Le Huu B to sign the contract on behalf of the legal representative in accordance with the order, procedures, and content prescribed by law. Mr. Nguyen Hoang S and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Long T have full civil act capacity.
[11] According to the content of Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017, the plaintiffs registered to purchase vacation for week 16, unit type A; starting from the year of official opening until the end of the Project term. Mr. Nguyen Hoang S and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Long T can sell or transfer to others or exchange vacations in several places worldwide (Optional Vacation Right). The purchaser must pay in several installments according to the project construction progress. Specifically, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Long T and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S had paid 03 deposit installments totaling 310,488,000 VND (receiving a 10,000,000 VND discount).
[12] The official opening date is determined according to Article 8 of the Contract. That is, within 36 months from the date of issuance of the final construction permit and extended by another 6 months, the Company will send a completion notice to the customer.
[13] Additionally, annually from the official opening date, customers must pay a maintenance or management fee according to Article 3 of Appendix C attached to the contract, which regulates the rights and obligations of the parties, terms of payment, deposits, transfers, and obligations arising from the contract.
[14] The parties entered into the vacation ownership contract freely and voluntarily, with commitments and agreements whose contents do not violate legal prohibitions or social ethics, which are effective for the parties and must be respected by other subjects and serve as a basis for dispute resolution.
[15] The Trial Panel finds:
[16] V Resort Company Limited was granted a Business Registration Certificate by the People’s Committee of Khanh Hoa Province on February 05, 2013, with the 4th amendment registered on April 08, 2016, and the 5th amendment on October 15, 2018; Investment Certificate No. 371022000419 dated February 05, 2013, and the 3rd amendment registration on January 27, 2015, to invest and implement the ALMA Luxury Resort project at plots D7a2, TT4, X6 in North R Peninsula Tourism Area, C District, Khanh Hoa.
[17] During the investment and implementation of the project, V Resort Company Limited organized sessions to introduce the vacation model in several localities, including Ho Chi Minh City.
[18] The plaintiffs were among many customers invited by V Resort Company Limited to participate in the event on February 26, 2017.
[19] At the event, the plaintiffs directly entered into Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017, with V Resort Company Limited. And as of March 15, 2017, the plaintiffs had paid a deposit of 310,488,000 VND, including a preferential policy of 10,000,000 VND, with the actual paid amount being 300,488,000 VND.
[20] While waiting for the official opening date, the plaintiffs argued that Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017, contained many inappropriate provisions causing damage to the plaintiffs’ rights, so they met with V Resort Company Limited several times to negotiate contract termination, but this was not granted by V Resort Company Limited. Therefore, the plaintiffs sued and requested the Court to consider declaring Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017, null and void due to deception, mistake, violation of legal prohibitions, and delay in putting the project into use.
[21] Speaking in defense of the defendant’s rights, the lawyer argued that the reasons given by the plaintiffs as grounds for requesting the Court to declare Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017, null and void, such as being deceived, mistaken, or violating legal prohibitions, are unacceptable due to the reasons provided by the defendant above, along with the argument brief sent to the Trial Panel.
[22] Considering:
[23] First, it should be recognized that this is a new concept of ownership in Vietnam, where the owner exercises their rights for a certain period (07 days) at the place where the vacation was purchased. It is not synonymous with real estate ownership rights. Real estate ownership still belongs to the investor, V Resort Company Limited, during the period of the valid permit.
[24] Thus, the vacation ownership for which Mr. Nguyen Hoang S and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Long T deposited to reserve a spot is considered a type of asset (right) formed in the future. But only after the time of contract conclusion, when the Resort is officially put into use, will it belong to Mr. Nguyen Hoang S and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Long T. The fact that the parties traded deposits and reservations to own a vacation (performing the contract) is consistent with Clause 2 Article 108 and Article 328 of the Civil Code 2015.
[25] The plaintiffs claim that V Resort Company Limited deceived them about the project investor being an Israeli billionaire, Mr. I, and about the investment capital. However, through the documents provided by the defendant and publicly examined, it is shown: V Company has 02 capital contributors including E Company and Mr. Duong Tuan A. In which, E Company is among the enterprises controlled and owned by Mr. I and his businesses. Thus, it is true that Mr. I is an investor (not the project owner/investor) of the Company, investing through companies under his control. The plaintiffs failed to provide evidence to prove that V Resort Company Limited deceived them by asserting Mr. I was the project investor.
[26] The initially registered charter capital was 105 billion VND, and the investment capital for project implementation according to the 5th amended business registration certificate dated October 15, 2018, was 426 billion VND. This is the capital contribution as committed by the investor to the project company, in accordance with Vietnamese law, not yet including but not limited to: land rent, investment costs, construction, management, project operation, and other costs.
[27] Thus, the estimated investment level of the project at 300 million USD is the estimated total investment capital of the entire project, not the charter capital.
[28] The plaintiffs stated the reason: The defendant advertised the product as designed according to an award-winning model, but when built, it was not like the award-winning model; the advertised model and actual model were not the same. The magazines published to promote the product were untruthful.
[29] However, the model design change was approved by the People’s Committee of Khanh Hoa Province in Document No. 3590/UBND-XDND dated May 27, 2016, and had been notified to vacation owners.
[30] The advertising in publications has legal publishing licenses, and up to the date of the first-instance trial, no document from a competent authority had canceled or recalled these publications.
[31] When participating in the event and officially concluding the contract, the participant must know what event they are participating in, what contract they are signing, and where their investment is located. The location where the Resort is built was made public by the Resort Company; transactional documents and papers also show the location of ALMA Nha Trang. It cannot be said that V Resort Company Limited’s use of the name ALMA Nha Trang or seminar invitations switching to introduce models and products is a deception of customers.
[32] From there, there is no evidence showing that one of the parties to the contract was deceived as regulated in Article 127 of the Civil Code 2015. Therefore, Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017, and the attached appendices are effective.
[33] The regulation in Clause 4.4 Article 4 of the Contract regarding the Optional Vacation Right, Section 2 Appendix B terms and conditions of vacation rights, is essentially the exchange of vacation ownership at other Resorts worldwide, operating in the same manner as at the Resort, participating in the same exchange network.
[34] In reality, if vacationers do not vacation at the Resort where they purchased ownership, they can exchange vacations with other vacationers, including vacations abroad. This is an activity where vacationers choose alternative vacation opportunities from a range of exchange opportunities that the Company can provide. V Resort Company Limited does not conduct business in taking Vietnamese people abroad for tourism, but only supports vacationers in connecting tourism locations. Among the vacationers, many have performed vacation exchanges through the Optional Vacation Right, and they directly contacted the alternative vacation site and performed procedures to travel abroad arranged by the Company with relevant parties so that the vacationers are provided with services by other vacation service providers at the location chosen by the vacationer.
[35] Supporting and helping the Company’s vacationers choose an exchange location and procedures for other vacation service providers to provide services to the vacationer cannot be considered a link or stage in taking vacationers abroad as argued by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also failed to provide evidence proving V Resort Company Limited took people abroad illegally.
[36] Thus, there are no documents or evidence proving V Resort Company Limited itself took vacation ownership buyers for overseas tourism.
[37] According to Clause 5.2 Article 5 of Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017, and Clause 2.2 Article 2 of Appendix C attached to the Contract regarding the deposit and payment progress, the amount paid by Mr. Nguyen Hoang S and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Long T is a deposit. Only after the official opening date will the paid amount be converted into part of the payment.
[38] Thus, the deposit amount of Mr. Nguyen Hoang S and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Long T is intended to perform the contract according to Article 328 of the Civil Code 2015.
[39] The deposit amount V Resort Company Limited received from the Vacationers (which is not precious metals, gemstones, or valuable objects) was disposed of by the Company in the form of investment in the project and reasonable expenses not prohibited by law, and the parties’ agreement on the use of the deposit was not restricted. In case a refund or compensation is required for any reason, the value of the money to be returned or compensated is calculated; no one requires returning the exact currency units deposited, as suggested by the plaintiffs’ representative.
[40] Right on the cover page of the Contract, “vacation ownership” was identified. Article 3 of Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017, states “The Vacationer, under this contract, agrees to rent a room from the Company…” and in Appendix A part III, IV the plaintiffs also confirmed reserving a type of vacation unit, vacation week, and the room rental payment amount, not real estate ownership or real estate payment. With such clear provisions in the contract, it cannot be mistaken for real estate ownership. The reason the plaintiffs gave for being mistaken about real estate ownership is unacceptable.
[41] The plaintiffs claim that when participating in signing the contract, the marketing staff of V Resort Company Limited did not give the plaintiffs reasonable time to study the contract content, violating Article 17 of the Law on Protection of Consumers’ Rights. However, taking time to study the contract is a consumer’s right; the fact that the plaintiffs did not exercise this right is considered a waiver of their right. The Law on Protection of Consumers’ Rights as well as the Civil Code do not have provisions stating that if a business organization or individual does not allow reasonable time for consumers to study a contract, the contract will be null and void. Therefore, the fact that the plaintiffs voluntarily signed the contract is true, and at the trial, the plaintiffs’ representative still affirmed that the conclusion of the contract was completely voluntary. Thus, the contract is effective.
[42] Regarding project implementation progress: The official opening date is determined according to Article 8 of the Contract as within 36 months from the date of issuance of the final construction permit and extended by 6 months (if any), the Company will send a completion notice to the customer. Currently, the file shows 2 construction permits:
– Construction Permit No. 67/GPXD-SXD dated April 28, 2017.
– Construction Permit No. 133/GPXD-SXD dated October 24, 2018.
[43] Thus, up to the trial date, if based on the Construction Permit dated April 28, 2017, it has not yet exceeded 36 months from the issuance date. Meanwhile, on October 24, 2018, V Resort Company Limited was granted another construction permit. Therefore, there is no basis to claim that V Resort Company Limited violated the construction progress, delayed putting the project into operation, or violated the deadline for handing over vacations to owners.
[44] From the above arguments and analyses, it is found that Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017, and the attached Appendices do not fall under the cases of invalid civil transactions regulated from Article 122 to Article 129 of the Civil Code 2015. Therefore, Article 131 of the Civil Code 2015 is not applied to handle it as requested by the plaintiffs.
[45] Regarding the request to return the deposit amount.
[46] It is found that: The nature of the reservation confirmation is a deposit contract. According to the agreement, the above deposit amount will be converted into the 1st installment payment on the official opening date. Thus, at the time of establishing the Reservation Confirmation, the above amount was a deposit for reservation to ensure the performance of the service contract. This deposit contract is not contrary to the law or social ethics. On the other hand, in section 4.1 of the Contract, it is also regulated: “The Vacationer, under this Contract, irrevocably commits and agrees to reserve to enjoy the Vacation Right under the terms and conditions of this Contract. To reserve, the vacationer will pay a deposit to the Company according to Article 5.2 of Appendix C”. The defendant did not violate the contract, and the plaintiffs also had no evidence to prove the defendant violated the deposit contract; and the parties agreed the Contract is irrevocable; the “Vacation ownership contract” is not null and void as requested by the plaintiffs; therefore, the plaintiffs’ request to return the deposit of 300,488,000 VND is groundless.
[47] Regarding court fees: Since the requests of Mrs. Nguyen Thi Long T and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S were not accepted, they must bear 300,000 VND in court fees for the request to declare the Contract invalid and 15,024,400 VND in first-instance civil court fees for the request to return 300,488,000 VND. Thus, Mr. Nguyen Hoang S and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Long T must pay a total first-instance civil court fee of 15,324,400 VND.
For the above reasons,
DECISION:
Applying articles 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 328, 401, 513 of the Civil Code 2015; Article 14, Article 42, Article 43 of the Law on Protection of Consumers’ Rights; Article 74 of the Commercial Law; Article 17 of the Law on Commercial Arbitration; Section 4 Chapter IV of the Law on Tourism; Article 147, Article 273 of the Civil Procedure Code;
Applying Clause 1 Article 26, Clause 3 Article 27 of Resolution No. 326/2016/UBTVQH14 dated December 30, 2016, of the National Assembly Standing Committee regulating the collection rates, exemption, reduction, collection, payment, management, and use of court fees and charges.
Ruling: To reject the request of the plaintiffs, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Long T and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S, regarding the declaration that Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017, concluded between Mrs. Nguyen Thi Long T and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S with V Resort Company Limited is null and void and the return of the paid deposit of 300,488,000 VND due to being groundless.
Regarding court fees: Mrs. Nguyen Thi Long T and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S must pay 15,324,400 VND in first-instance civil court fees.
To return 7,512,000 VND in court fee advance payment to Mrs. Nguyen Thi Long T and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S according to receipt No. AA/2016/0008400 dated February 01, 2018, of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Bureau of Nha Trang City.
Informing the plaintiffs and the defendant that they have the right to appeal the first-instance judgment within 15 days from the date of pronouncement to request the People’s Court of Khanh Hoa Province to retry the case according to appellate procedures.
CONTENT OF THE PRECEDENT
“[9] Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 is a standard form contract provided by the service provider, pre-drafted with an arbitration clause; now the plaintiff, who is a consumer, does not agree to choose arbitration and requests the People’s Court of Nha Trang City to resolve it, which is consistent with Article 38 of the Law on Protection of Consumers’ Rights, Article 17 of the Law on Commercial Arbitration, and the guidance in Clause 5 Article 4 of Resolution No. 01/2014/NQ-HDTP dated March 20, 2014, of the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court. Therefore, the People’s Court of Nha Trang City accepting and resolving the dispute is within its jurisdiction according to Clause 3 Article 26 and Clause 1 Article 35 of the Civil Procedure Code and within the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit as regulated in Article 429 of the Civil Code 2015 and Article 184 of the Civil Procedure Code”.
