>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
No. 2 of Ten Noteworthy Financial Cases in Shanghai Courts of 2018: Issuing Bank May Adjust Credit Limit Based on Cardholder's Credit Standing Pursuant to Contract - a case of Qiu A v. Credit Card Center A on credit-card disputes
2018年度上海法院金融商事审判十大案例之二:邱某与甲信用卡中心信用卡纠纷案——发卡行有权依约根据持卡人资信状况调整信用卡额度
【法宝引证码】

No. 2 of Ten Noteworthy Financial Cases in Shanghai Courts of 2018: Issuing Bank May Adjust Credit Limit Based on Cardholder's Credit Standing Pursuant to Contract - a case of Qiu A v. Credit Card Center A on credit-card disputes
2018年度上海法院金融商事审判十大案例之二:邱某与甲信用卡中心信用卡纠纷案——发卡行有权依约根据持卡人资信状况调整信用卡额度
No. 2 of Ten Noteworthy Financial Cases in Shanghai Courts of 2018: Issuing Bank May Adjust Credit Limit Based on Cardholder's Credit Standing Pursuant to Contract - a case of Qiu A v. Credit Card Center A on credit-card disputes 2018年度上海法院金融商事审判十大案例之二:邱某与甲信用卡中心信用卡纠纷案——发卡行有权依约根据持卡人资信状况调整信用卡额度
[Gist] 【裁判要旨】
The Contract on Issuance and Use of Credit Card (the “Credit Card Contract”) between the issuing bank and the cardholder provided that the bank may adjust the credit limit basing on changes in the cardholder's credit standing, and such provision is held by the Court as valid. To determine whether any agreed change occurred to the credit standing of the cardholder, comprehensive considerations shall be given to factors such as the number, amount and time of overdue repayments as well as repayment of debts of other credit cards by the cardholder. 信用卡领用合约中,当事人关于发卡行有权根据持卡人资信状况变化调整信用卡额度的约定有效。持卡人是否发生约定的“资信状况变化”,可以从案涉信用卡逾期还款次数、逾期还款金额和时间以及持卡人其他信用卡还款情况等方面,综合予以判定。
[Facts] 基本案情
On September 6,2012, Qiu A (Party B) applied to Credit Card Center A (Party A) for credit card and completed relevant application form. In this application form, Qiu A handwrote “I have carefully read all the application materials, fully known and understood relevant information of the Credit Card Product, and am willing to abide by the Credit Card Contract”, and signed the application form for confirmation. Meanwhile, the Credit Card Contract in Article 2.1 provided that Party A may adjust the credit limit at any time with immediate effect basing on changes in Party B's credit standing and notify Party B via telephone, in writing or by other means. After the Credit Card Contract was executed, Credit Card Center A issued a credit card to Qiu A with a credit limit of 20,000 yuan. The cardholder, however, failed to pay off the credit card debt on time in November 2012, March, June and September 2013, February and March 2014, May and June 2017, and March 2018 respectively. In addition, he also delayed repayment of debts of the credit cards issued by four other banks. On March 29, 2018, Credit Card Center A notified Qiu A with a short message that the credit limit has been lowered to RMB10,000. Qiu A then brought a lawsuit to the Court, petitioning for restoring the credit limit to RMB20,000. 2012年9月6日,邱某(乙方)向甲信用卡中心(甲方)申请办理信用卡并填写申请表。申请表上,邱某手写“本人已阅读全部申请材料,充分了解并清楚知晓该信用卡产品的相关信息,愿意遵守领用合同的各项规则”,并且签名确认。关于信用额度调整,《领用合约》第二条第一款约定:“甲方有权根据乙方资信状况的变化随时调整其信用额度并以电话、书面或其他方式通知乙方。该调整一经甲方作出即对乙方具有约束力。”合同签订后,甲信用卡中心向邱某发放信用卡,信用额度为2万元。2012年11月,2013年3月、6月、9月,2014年2月、3月,2017年5月、6月,2018年3月,案涉信用卡均发生逾期还款。原告持有的其他四家银行信用卡也在2017年存在多次逾期还款。2018年3月29日,甲信用卡中心以短信方式通知邱某调减信用额度至1万元。邱某遂诉至法院,要求恢复案涉信用卡原有信用额度2万元。
[Judgement]

哎哟不错哦

 裁判结果
On January 10, 2019, the Shanghai Pudong New Area People's Court delivered a civil judgement ([2018] Hu 0115 Min Chu No.52721) rejecting the petition of Qiu A. Neither party appealed. The judgment has already come into force. 上海市浦东新区人民法院于2019年1月10日作出(2018)沪0115民初52721号民事判决:驳回邱某的诉讼请求。判决后,双方当事人均未上诉,判决已发生法律效力。
[Reasoning] 裁判理由
The Court held that, first of all, Article 2.1 of the Credit Card Contract complies with Article 52 of the Measures for the Supervision and Administration of the Credit Card Business of Commercial Banks. Indeed, such contractual and legal provisions have not specified the criteria for change in credit standing, however, in this case, that Qiu A repeatedly failed to timely pay off the debts of the credit cards issued by Credit Card Center A and other banks, constitutes obviously a “change in credit standing” in the opinion of any reasonable person. Secondly, although the lowering of the credit limit somehow restricted Qiu A's right to trade through the credit card, it also reduced the credit risks to which Qiu A with a worsening credit standing might be exposed, and decreased the interest income otherwise may be obtained by Credit Card Center A. This lowering of credit limit was, therefore, not obviously unfair to Qiu A. Thirdly, the adjustment of credit limit under Article 2.1 of the Credit Card Contract involves the advance payment obligation of the issuing bank, rather than limiting or waiving its liabilities. Besides, the adjustment may be either downwards or upwards. Therefore, the Court did not support Qiu A's claim that Article 2.1 is a standard liability exemption clause while Credit Card Center A failed to highlight or explain it, and held that Credit Card Center A may unilaterally lower the credit limit according to the Credit Card Contract. 法院认为:首先,《领用合约》第二条第一款符合《商业银行信用卡业务监督管理办法》第五十二条的规定。虽然上述约定和法律规定未明确资信状况的具体标准,但是就本案而言,邱某出现的案涉信用卡还款逾期以及其他银行信用卡还款逾期,显然属于“资信状况变化”的通常理解范围。其次,甲信用卡中心由此调减邱某信用额度,固然在一定程度上限制了邱某持卡交易的权利,但亦相应地减少了邱某在资信状况恶化情况下、继续持卡交易后无力还款的信用风险,同时该调减也限制了甲信用卡中心的利息收益,故该调减对邱某而言并未显失公平。第三,《领用合约》第二条第一款约定的信用额度调整涉及的是发卡银行承担垫付义务的范围,而非发卡银行的责任限制或者免除,并且该调整既包括调减也包括调高,故法院对邱某提出的甲信用卡中心对免责格式条款未提示和说明的理由亦不予支持。综上,甲信用卡中心有权依据《领用合约》的约定单方调减邱某案涉信用卡的信用额度。
[Significance] 【裁判意义】
As the credit policies change and the financial consumers' consciousness of defending their rights enhances, the number of the cases in which cardholders petition for restoring credit limits continues to rise. From the perspective of administrative supervision and risk prevention and control, the provision on adjustment of credit limit in this case in not in violation of any rule. As to judicial interpretation of “credit standing”, the Court, under the guiding principle of good faith, offered the reference criteria for judicial review by taking in to account the number, amount, time and method of overdue repayments to answer the question of whether credit standing changed or not. The judgement embodied the principle of good faith and the spirit of contract in credit card transactions, and will help regulate the financial trading and improve the awareness of financial consumers to honor the contracts and maintain good credit. 随着信贷政策变化以及金融消费者维权意识的增强,持卡人要求恢复信用卡授信额度的案件持续增多。从行政监管、风险防控角度而言,案涉调整授信额度条款并未违规。针对“资信状况”的解释问题,法院以诚信为价值导向,从还款逾期次数、逾期金额和时间、还款方式等角度,判断资信状况是否发生变化,提供了“资信状况变化”的审查判断参考标准。本判决体现了信用卡交易的诚信原则和契约精神,有利于提高金融消费者的守约意识和信用意识,规范金融交易行为。
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese