The Supreme People's Court issued the "Regulations on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Bank Card Civil Dispute Cases" (draft for comments) on June 6, which intends to stipulate that cardholders choose the minimum repayment amount to repay credit card overdrafts If the overdraft interest is calculated based on the outstanding overdraft amount and the minimum repayment amount has been repaid, the people's court shall support it.
In addition, as to whether and how to pay the full penalty interest, the draft for comments also provides a second option. The card issuer will "repay the credit card overdraft in accordance with the minimum repayment amount, and shall pay in accordance with the minimum repayment amount." The clause "overdraft interest will be charged on the entire overdraft amount from the accounting date to the repayment date" fails to provide reasonable reminders and explanations. If the cardholder claims that the overdraft interest should be calculated based on the outstanding overdraft amount, the people's court should support it; the card issuance Although the bank has fulfilled its obligations of reasonable prompting and explanation, the cardholder has repaid 90% of the entire overdraft amount. If the cardholder claims that the overdraft interest shall be calculated based on the outstanding amount, the People's Court shall support it. These regulations mean that the terms of "full credit card interest accrual" may be suspended.
The interest accrual on the full amount of the credit card mainly means that when the cardholder fails to repay the entire balance of the bill, the interest should be calculated based on the full amount of the bill, including the repaid portion. For example, if the bill is 20,000 yuan, even if the balance is only 1 penny short of the due date, the interest should be calculated based on 20,000 yuan. It can be said that full interest accrual on credit cards is nothing new. Many people have criticized its fairness and rationality. However, many banks still implement the full interest accrual clause in their own way.
For example, in March 2016, CCTV host Li Xiaodong used a bank credit card to spend more than 18,000 yuan, but 69 yuan was not repaid, and 10 days later, more than 300 yuan of interest accrued. Later, he learned that the bank's method of charging overdue interest on credit cards was calculated based on the total bill of the month, rather than the outstanding amount. Li Xiaodong asked the bank to return the more than 300 yuan in interest charged to him. After the first and second trials, it was not until January 2018 that the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court made a second-instance judgment, holding that the full amount of interest-based compensation was excessively higher than the losses caused by the cardholder’s breach of contract and should be appropriately reduced, requiring the defendant to return the excess deductions. The money was 253.75 yuan.
Whether from the perspective of fairness or transaction habits, the full interest calculation terms are obviously unfair to cardholders. Interest or penalty interest is usually based on the principal. Interest or penalty interest only exists when there is principal. If the principal has been partially repaid, the debtor only needs to bear interest on the unpaid portion. In formal financial lending or private lending between natural persons, the borrower and the lender also agree on this, and rarely agree on full interest calculation.
Even if it enters the litigation process, the People's Court only requires the debtor to bear interest on the unpaid portion, and cannot require the debtor to pay interest on the repaid portion. Even if the debtor commits a serious breach of contract, it will not make it bear all the interest. Amount of penalty and interest. The relationship between the bank and the cardholder is an ordinary civil legal relationship, and it obviously does not have the privilege to require the cardholder to bear the full amount of interest.
Secondly, the full interest accrual on credit cards is a typical overbearing clause and standard contract. Anyone who has applied for a credit card probably has the experience that the salesperson will only talk about the interest-free period, credit limit and other advantages without mentioning the risks. It also "guides" the card holders to fill in the relevant information according to the fixed template, resulting in many people having no idea about the liability for breach of contract, let alone the full interest calculation terms. In particular, some banks will "kindly" remind cardholders that they only need to repay the minimum repayment amount of about 10, but say nothing about the full interest accrual terms, which can easily make cardholders fall into a carefully set trap. This is somewhat similar to the much-questioned "routine loans" and should obviously be cleaned up.
A society ruled by law and a market economy pay attention to honesty, credibility, fairness and justice. It is obviously very necessary for the Supreme Court’s draft to deny and correct the full interest calculation clause. Of course, in the context of low cost of breach of trust, there are many credit card defaults. Some small defaults are time-consuming and laborious to deal with and even become "loss-making transactions." However, other sanctions can be used, such as blacklisting overdue persons. The opinion draft also clarifies that card issuing banks can claim compound interest, handling fees, liquidated damages, etc. with an annual interest rate not exceeding 36.
In other words, as long as the rules are clear, the standards are reasonable, and there are no petty tricks, the bank's demands will be supported. Only in this way can we use judicial intervention to prevent bank stores from cheating customers, so that cardholders can be treated fairly and reasonably.