The method of full interest calculation is unreasonable and belongs to the unfair overlord clause. The relationship between the bank and the cardholder is a loan contract. Both parties should have followed the spirit of contract and implemented autonomy of will, but the bank is in a strong position, and the bank and the cardholder are not in a state of equivalence, so they cannot be regarded as equivalent. Cardholders are financial consumers and are in a weak position. Li Dongfang, director of the Institute of Economic Law, School of Civil and Commercial Economics, China University of Political Science and Law, believes that when opening a card, the cardholder loses the right to negotiate the terms of the full interest format, and the information between the cardholder and the bank is asymmetric and unequal, which is unfair from the perspective of consumer protection. Liu Junhai, director of the Institute of Commercial Law of Renmin University of China, holds the same view. "How much responsibility consumers bear when they breach the contract, and not too much unfair liability for breach of contract, which is the basic premise of performance." In his view, after the overdue fact, the bank lost only the unpaid part of the interest, and the paid part obviously did not belong to the interests it advocated; In addition, most consumers have no malice in overdue repayment, and most of them are negligence.
In 2009, China Industrial and Commercial Bank cancelled full interest calculation and changed it to "partial repayment and partial interest calculation"; 20 13 The new version of China Bank Card Industry Self-discipline Convention, which came into effect in July, introduced a new policy of "tolerance repayment": a small amount of money due in the bill will be automatically rolled into the next bill without full interest. This convention requires banks to repay credit cards at least "within three days 10 yuan", which can be regarded as timely repayment. Although most banks have not followed the example of China Industrial and Commercial Bank, and legal experts have different views on the rationality of full interest, it is consistent to call on the banking industry to gradually change the way of full interest.
"Although the full interest rate is beyond reproach from a legal and moral point of view, it can be adjusted and improved objectively, and it is also conducive to improving public relations or customer experience." Wang Weiguo said that from the perspective of financial inclusion and services, banks should also strengthen their own promotion. Banks can choose different trading methods and ask them to fulfill their obligation of prompting and informing. This is a development process. Improving service and paying attention to customer experience is the development trend, and the problem of full benefit can be solved and improved through market competition. In his view, for banks, the dispute and discussion of format clauses should take the case as an opportunity and attach importance to customer experience. Improving the refinement of trading methods and improving the inclusiveness of finance will not pay off. Guo Feng believes that the law does not prohibit the calculation method of full interest. After the bank has fulfilled its obligation of prompting and informing, it is a commercial act for both parties to choose freely, but the government can effectively guide it. "The provisions of the self-discipline convention are a concession." In Liu Junhai's view, trade associations should further play their role, remove hidden rules and overlord clauses in the industry, and protect consumers' normal financial lending behavior.