What is the national rule that restaurants are not allowed to bring their own alcohol?

The state expressly prohibits restaurants from unilaterally formulating overlord clauses to harm the rights and interests of consumers.

According to the A1 edition of the 20140214 issue of China Consumer Daily, the Supreme People's Court replied to the newspaper's written interview on February 12, 2014

1. Although the unequal standard clauses (commonly known as the overlord clauses) formulated by the catering industry are not applicable to the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Food and Drug Dispute Cases (hereinafter referred to as the "Provisions"), consumers may request the People's Court to confirm the invalidity of the overlord clauses for clauses that violate the Contract Law and the Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law (hereinafter referred to as the "Consumer Law").

2. In its reply, the SPC further pointed out that the prohibition of bringing your own alcohol and setting a minimum consumption in private rooms are unfair and unreasonable provisions made by catering operators to increase consumer responsibilities by taking advantage of their dominant position, and Dansan violates relevant laws and regulations and belongs to the overlord clause. In accordance with the above-mentioned legal provisions, consumers may request the people's court to confirm the invalidity of the Overlord clause.

3. In response to the view that 'the food and catering industry is a fully competitive industry, and some unequal standard clauses, such as prohibiting bringing one's own alcohol and setting a minimum consumption in private rooms, are not expressly prohibited by law, and the acts that are not expressly prohibited are legal', the Supreme People's Court said in an interview with this newspaper that the "Provisions" do not conflict with the view that "what is not expressly prohibited by the law is legal".

Restaurants are not allowed to refuse to allow consumers to bring their own alcohol. Refusing to allow consumers to bring their own alcohol infringes on consumers' right to make their own choices.

Article 4 of the General Principles of the Civil Law stipulates that "civil activities shall follow the principles of voluntariness, fairness, equivalent compensation, and good faith".

Article 4 of the Contract Law stipulates that "the parties shall enjoy the right to voluntarily conclude a contract in accordance with the law"; Article 3 stipulates that "the parties to a contract are equal in legal status and one party may not impose its will on the other".

Article 9 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests stipulates that "consumers have the right to choose goods or services independently"; Article 24 stipulates that "business operators shall not make unfair or unreasonable provisions to consumers by means of standard contracts, notices, statements, store notices, etc., or reduce or exempt them from civil liability for harming the legitimate rights and interests of consumers".

Article 12 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law stipulates that "when a business operator sells goods, it shall not tie in the sale of goods against the will of the purchaser or attach other unreasonable conditions".

According to the law, consumers have their own choice, and some hotels prohibit consumers from bringing their own alcohol for their own benefit, which is not in accordance with the law.

According to the contract law, it is forbidden to bring your own alcohol, which is an overlord clause.

Restaurants may not refuse to allow consumers to bring their own alcohol, or allow them to bring their own alcohol but charge a corkage fee.

According to the Supreme People's Court, the provisions of the Consumer Law may apply to consumers who encounter disputes arising from overlord clauses when providing services to catering operators, but not to the Provisions. The Supreme People's Court further pointed out that "prohibiting the bringing of one's own alcohol" and "setting a minimum consumption in private rooms" are unfair and unreasonable provisions made by catering operators to increase consumer responsibilities by taking advantage of their dominant position, which violates relevant laws and regulations and are overlord clauses. The consumer may request the people's court to confirm the invalidity of the Overlord Clause.

According to the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests:

Article 9: Consumers enjoy the right to choose goods or services independently. Consumers have the right to independently choose the business operators that provide goods or services, to choose the types of goods or services, to decide whether to buy or not to buy any kind of goods, and to accept or not to accept any kind of services. Consumers have the right to compare, identify and select goods or services when they choose goods or services independently.

Article 10: Consumers enjoy the right to fair trade. When purchasing goods or receiving services, consumers have the right to obtain fair trading conditions such as quality assurance, reasonable prices, and correct measurements, and have the right to refuse the forced trading behavior of business operators.

Article 24 stipulates that "business operators shall not make unfair or unreasonable provisions to consumers by means of standard contracts, notices, statements, store notices, etc."

Article 40 of the Contract Law stipulates that if a standard clause has the circumstances specified in Articles 52 and 53 of this Law, or if the party providing the standard clause exempts itself from liability, increases the liability of the other party, or excludes the main rights of the other party, the clause shall be invalid.

Restaurants may not refuse to allow consumers to bring their own alcohol, nor may they charge corkage fees without the consumer's consent.

Charging corkage fees and refusing to allow consumers to bring their own drinks infringe on consumers' right to make their own choices.

According to Article 9 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests, consumers enjoy the right to choose goods or services independently.

Consumers have the right to independently choose the business operators that provide goods or services, to choose the types of goods or services, to decide whether to buy or not to buy any kind of goods, and to accept or not to accept any kind of services.

Consumers have the right to compare, identify and select goods or services when they choose goods or services independently.

Refusing consumers to bring their own alcohol in the form of notices, forcing consumers to accept high-priced alcoholic beverages or charging unreasonable fees for bringing their own alcoholic beverages objectively infringes on consumers' right to independent choice and fair trade.

Article 9 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests stipulates that "consumers have the right to choose goods or services independently"; Article 24 stipulates that "business operators shall not make unfair or unreasonable provisions to consumers by means of standard contracts, notices, statements, store notices, etc., or reduce or exempt them from civil liability for harming the legitimate rights and interests of consumers".

Article 12 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law stipulates that "when a business operator sells goods, it shall not tie in the sale of goods against the will of the purchaser or attach other unreasonable conditions".

Article 4 of the General Principles of the Civil Law stipulates that "civil activities shall follow the principles of voluntariness, fairness, equivalent compensation, and good faith". Article 4 of the Contract Law stipulates that "the parties shall enjoy the right to voluntarily conclude a contract in accordance with the law"; Article 3 stipulates that "the parties to a contract are equal in legal status and one party may not impose its will on the other". Article 9 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests stipulates that "consumers have the right to choose goods or services independently"; Article 24 stipulates that "business operators shall not make unfair or unreasonable provisions to consumers by means of standard contracts, notices, statements, store notices, etc., or reduce or exempt them from civil liability for harming the legitimate rights and interests of consumers".

Article 12 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law stipulates that "when a business operator sells goods, it shall not tie in the sale of goods against the will of the purchaser or attach other unreasonable conditions".

This is the merchant's own regulation, and the state has no regulations on this, and the behavior of the merchant in the stipulation is illegal.

You should take your lunch and beer, go to the restaurant, find a table to eat, and leave. Bring your own legitimate!

The Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests stipulates that business operators shall follow the principles of voluntariness, equality, fairness, honesty and credibility in conducting transactions with consumers. Article 29 of the Consumer Law stipulates:

Relevant state organs shall, in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations, punish illegal and criminal conduct by business operators that infringe upon the lawful rights and interests of consumers in the provision of goods and services.

At the same time, it is stipulated that standard contracts, notices, statements, store notices, etc., contain unfair and unreasonable provisions to consumers, and their contents are invalid.

But the reality is that the rules are in effect, and the regulations are weak.

No. This is a violation of consumer rights.

Legal analysis: The "no alcohol" notice drafted by the merchant in advance should be characterized as a standard clause. This standard clause formulated by the merchant clearly violates the "three rights of consumers" such as "excluding or restricting consumer rights and increasing consumer responsibilities".

This provision is illegal under national law.

Legal basis: Article 26 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests provides that if a business operator uses standard terms in business activities, it shall draw consumers' attention to the quantity and quality of goods or services, price or fees, performance period and method, safety precautions and risk warnings, after-sales service, civil liability and other content that has a major interest in consumers, and explain it in accordance with the requirements of consumers. Proprietors must not use standard clauses, notices, statements, store notices, or other methods to make provisions that are unfair or unreasonable to consumers, such as excluding or restricting consumer rights, reducing or exempting proprietors' liability, or increasing consumer liability, and must not use standard clauses or use technical means to compel transactions.

If the standard terms, notices, statements, store notices, etc. contain the contents listed in the preceding paragraph, the contents shall be invalid.