信用卡消费者权益保护法律问题分析——以艾陆诉中国民生银行信用卡纠纷案为例-analysis of legal issues concerning the protection of credit card consumers rights and interests - taking ai lu v china minsheng bank credit card dispute case as an example.docxVIP

AbstractIn recent years, the consumption idea of Chinese people has a great change. There are more and more people prefer to use credit card to consumption, and the credit card market has been booming in China, almost all the Banks have launched their own credit card products. However, while the credit card consumption brings convenience for the general cardholders, it brings them great risks due to the irrationality of some related system of the card. In the first and the second trial of the credit card dispute case of Min Sheng bank, Mr. Ai Lu take whether the model clause of maximum balance interest display fair and whether the status of two parties of the credit card contract equal as the focus, to make the judgment which was against to the cardholder. This article is going to introduce the perspective of protecting the consumers rights and interests, analyzing the dispute between the credit card consumers and the issuing bank, to find out the rationality of the related system of the existing credit card, and to improve the law to protect the credit card consumer rights and interests from the perspective of protecting consumer.Besides the introduction and conclusion, there are five parts in this articleThe first part is the case introduction and the problems raises . This part introduces the whole story that Mr. Ai Lu appeals the credit card dispute case with China Min Sheng Banking co., LTD; the plaintiffs claim and the defendants plea; and the decision of the first and the second trial. On this basis to summing up the controversial focus of the case is the effectiveness problem of the model clause of the maximum balance interest and whether the status the two parties equal, when signing the Using Agreement of China Min Sheng Bank Credit Card (Individual) ; And putting forward the query to the verdict of this case, thinking that the verdict of this case regulate the contractor’s obligations just according to the protecting mode of the contract law, which i