First, the legal issues of online consumption contracts.

With the popularity of the Internet, consumers are increasingly using the Internet as a platform for online transactions. The virtual, borderless and high-tech characteristics of the network make consumers face many new problems in online transactions, such as the effectiveness of standard clauses in consumer contracts, the jurisdiction of disputes in consumer contracts, the choice of legal clauses and the application of laws in consumer contracts. Whether the consumer protection rules in the traditional private international law based on the traditional trade environment and regional characteristics can be effectively applied to consumer protection under the network environment has become a problem that consumer protection legislation must face up to under the network environment. This paper holds that although the network has changed the trading environment and trading methods to a certain extent, it has not caused a fundamental impact on the current consumer protection system. Therefore, the current legal principles of consumer protection should still be applied to the legal issues related to online consumer contracts. This paper studies the network consumption contract from three aspects: the regulation of standard terms, the jurisdiction of disputes and the application of law.

Key words: Internet consumers, standard terms, jurisdiction, law application, consumer protection.

First, the meaning and characteristics of online consumer contracts

To define the consumer contract, we must first define the scope of consumers properly. As one of the important links of social reproduction, consumption is the ultimate goal and destination of production, exchange and distribution, which includes productive consumption and life consumption. As the main body of consumption behavior, consumers are one of the three main bodies of economics alongside the government and enterprises. Legally, although it is generally considered as the main body of life consumption, there are still some differences on its specific positioning. Akio Takeuchi, a Japanese scholar, believes that consumers are people who buy and use materials and services provided by others for daily consumption, and are the symmetry of suppliers. German scholar Reinhard Shu believes that consumers are individuals who buy goods, receive services or ask for loans for personal, family or household use. In China, some scholars believe that consumers refer to residents who buy and use goods or services to meet their personal consumption needs. Some people think that consumers are the main body of consumption, including productive consumers and life consumers 4; According to the definition of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), consumers refer to individual members of society who buy or use goods and receive services for personal consumption. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) stipulates the meaning of consumers from the opposite side, that is, contracts concluded for personal, family or household use (that is, consumer contracts) are not applicable to this Convention 6; According to the American electronic signature law, consumers refer to individuals who obtain goods or services through transactions for the purpose of individuals or families. The Brussels Jurisdiction Convention adopted by the European Union in 1968 considers consumers as human beings) 8; A person who buys goods or receives services for non-trade or professional purposes. According to the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome Convention) adopted by the European Union in 1980, consumers refer to private individuals who purchase goods or receive services for purposes other than trade or occupation. According to the EU E-commerce Directive, a consumer is any natural person who purchases goods or receives services for purposes other than trade, commerce or occupation. Article 2 of China's current Consumer Protection Law points out that consumers refer to individuals who buy, use goods or receive services for their daily needs; At the same time, article 54 of the law also points out that farmers are also consumers when they buy and use the means of production directly used in agricultural production.

It can be seen that although the above expressions about the definition of consumers are different in terms of words, it is generally believed that consumers are natural persons who purchase goods or receive services for non-industrial or professional purposes. Correspondingly, the online consumption contract is also a contract concluded between consumers and providers or operators to purchase goods or receive services through the network. It has the following main characteristics: first, the online consumption contract is a contract to buy goods or receive services for non-industrial or professional purposes; Secondly, the online consumption contract must be a contract concluded between the provider or operator of goods or services and consumers in the course of their business operations; Third, the online consumption contract refers to the contract 1 1 concluded by consumers and providers or operators with the help of the Internet, especially the Internet. Finally, because the Internet is actually a communication platform, most online consumption contracts concluded through the Internet belong to communication transaction contracts in different places, and contracts are generally concluded without the parties meeting. In addition, the virtual, open and high-tech characteristics of the Internet make online consumption contracts have more and more complicated problems that are not conducive to consumers' rights and interests than ordinary consumption contracts.

With the widespread popularity of the Internet and the development of e-commerce, more and more consumer contracts are concluded through the Internet. For consumers, on the one hand, it is simple, convenient, cheap and efficient to conclude contracts through the Internet; On the other hand, the virtual, borderless and high-tech characteristics of the network make consumers face more unfavorable factors such as format clauses, dispute jurisdiction and legal application in online transactions than offline transactions. Therefore, from the perspective of protecting consumers' rights and interests, how to solve these problems in online consumption contracts is not only related to the vital interests of both parties to the transaction, but also to the balance of national interests and the healthy development of the Internet and e-commerce.

Second, the standard clauses in online consumption contracts and the protection of consumers' rights and interests.

(A) the format clause in the online consumption contract

Standard terms, also known as standard terms and standard contract terms, refer to the contract terms that one party draws up in advance to conclude a contract with an unspecified majority for repeated use, which are accepted by an unspecified third party and cannot be negotiated with. In German law, standard contract terms are called general transaction terms. In French law, it is called additional clause; In common law, it is called unfair clause; It is called general clause 12 in Japanese law. According to the current contract law of our country, the standard clauses are drawn up by the parties in advance for reuse, and they have not been negotiated by both parties when concluding the contract.

The formalization of contract terms can promote the rational operation of operators, reduce costs and benefit consumers. The problem is that operators often make use of their superior economic position to formulate terms that are beneficial to themselves but not to consumers, such as exemption clauses, loss of rights clauses and court jurisdiction clauses. Unreasonable distribution of risks and burdens in the contract. Ordinary consumers pay little attention to this clause and don't know its existence; Or although it exists, it is difficult to read because the content of the term is mostly complex and the font is small; Or although reading, it is difficult to understand the meaning because of the difficulty of the text; Even if you can understand its meaning and know the existence of unfavorable terms, you can't change it. You can only choose between accepting and rejecting. However, consumers actually have no choice, either because some enterprises are exclusive or because all enterprises use similar contract terms. Therefore, under the system of freedom of contract, how to regulate unreasonable contract terms and safeguard contract justice so that the economic strong can't squeeze the weak in the name of freedom of contract is the task that modern law should undertake.

Compared with traditional transactions, format contracts are more widely used in online transactions. In the form of expression, the network format contract terms are often deliberately placed at the end of the contract or in the middle of the first page or mixed with other terms; Or displayed in small print or fuzzy font, which is difficult for consumers to find; Or be obscure, so that consumers don't know what to say. Among them, the format clauses unfair to consumers mainly have the following types in content: A operators reduce or exempt their own responsibilities; Increase the responsibility of consumers; C. Restrict or deprive consumers of their rights, such as stipulating that consumers can only ask for replacement when the purchased goods are defective, and may not cancel the contract or reduce the payment, nor may they ask for compensation for losses; D. Unreasonable risk allocation, such as stipulating that the risks caused by factors such as system failure, third-party behavior and force majeure shall be borne by consumers; E. shortening the statutory warranty period of defects; Transfer the legal burden of proof; G agree to the dispute settlement clause that is beneficial to him; It can be seen that the use of these standard clauses deprives or restricts consumers' freedom of contract and makes consumers face an unfavorable situation.

From the object of contract, online consumption contracts can be divided into two categories: physical transaction contracts and service provision contracts. Among them, for the online physical transaction contract, the network is only a means of communication, and the parties conclude the contract through network communication, but the performance of the contract cannot or cannot be completely performed through the network, and the delivery of the subject matter can only be carried out offline; Payment can be made online or offline, but it is usually paid first and then delivered. For the contract of network services (including digital goods), not only the contract is concluded through the network, but also the contract is performed through the network. This way of concluding and performing contracts is extremely unfavorable to consumers: on the one hand, the way of concluding contracts online is extremely unfavorable to consumers. Because the two parties in online transactions don't meet before signing the contract, consumers' understanding of the business and its goods or services is usually based on the online advertisements of the business, but they can't know the goodwill of the business through actual contact, and they can't observe, select, test or perceive the quality of the goods or services on the spot, that is, the direct factor that consumers decide to choose the transaction object (business) and goods or services is often the online advertisements of the business. Therefore, the true statement and full information disclosure of merchants are very important for consumers to choose trading objects and goods or services. In practice, false advertisements, false statements or inducements from businesses often make consumers make inappropriate choices and infringe on their rights and interests. On the other hand, the performance mode of payment before delivery makes consumers face greater risks. In practice, merchants often require consumers to pay in advance through standard contract terms, and consumers will deliver goods or provide services after paying. Once the merchant breaches the contract or fails to perform the contract at all, consumers will face the situation that the purpose of the contract cannot be achieved, the cost of relief is high or even the loss outweighs the gain. In addition, due to third parties, system failures or force majeure and other reasons, the liability risks of compensation or loss or delayed arrival of goods are mostly borne by consumers. Therefore, from the perspective of fair trade and protection of consumers' rights and interests, it is really necessary to standardize the format clauses in online consumption contracts.

(2) Standardize the format clauses in network contracts to protect consumers' rights and interests.

In view of the borderless, virtual and high-tech characteristics of the network environment and its impact on consumer protection, many countries and regions have begun to regulate the format clauses in remote contracts such as network contracts to prevent merchants from using format clauses to infringe on consumers' legitimate rights and interests. For example, in the United States, the Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act (UCITA) has made corresponding provisions on the contracts of online consumer information license formats (shrink packaging license and click packaging license). According to this law, when concluding a standard contract, a merchant (licensor) should provide consumers or their reasonably set electronic agents with the opportunity to review the terms of the contract in a way that can attract the attention of ordinary people. When a clause in a format contract can only be reviewed after the consumer pays or begins to perform, if the consumer refuses the clause, it is deemed that a reasonable opportunity for review has not been provided. Merchants should display the format terms to consumers in a prominent position (that is, in the area near the description of computer information or access to information) and provide consumers with the opportunity to consult the contract terms. A copy of the format clause 18 shall be provided if required by the consumer; If the merchant fails to fulfill the above obligation to provide consumers with the opportunity to review, even if the consumer has already concluded a contract, but has any objection to the license contract after obtaining the opportunity to review, he may exercise the right to return the goods and demand compensation for the corresponding losses. If the contract or the terms of the contract are unfair, the court may refuse to enforce the terms or restrict the application of the terms to avoid unfair results. Japan's "Visit Transaction Law" stipulates that operators should provide consumers with the names and types of goods or services before visiting transactions; When consumers request to buy goods or receive services, business operators must provide consumers with relevant written documents, including the name, form, type and quantity, price, delivery or delivery time, name and address of the producer, business operator or service provider, time and method of payment, conditions, procedures, defect guarantee, etc. If the operator violates the regulations, the Ministry of Finance has the right to take measures to give necessary penalties, including suspension of business and fines. The EU Directive on Consumer Protection in Remote Contracts adopted by the European Union in 1997 regulates the format clauses in remote consumer contracts concluded through electronic communication including the Internet. The directive requires the operator to inform information in advance, such as the operator's name, domicile, characteristics of goods or services, delivery or provision arrangements, tax-included prices, freight and communication fees, payment methods, conditions, time limit and procedures for exercising the right to terminate the contract. Business operators shall deliver written confirmation of trading conditions to consumers, including trading conditions, time limit, procedures, complaint address, after-sales service, defect guarantee, etc. Although the EU E-commerce Directive adopted in 2000 does not directly stipulate the validity of standard contracts or clauses, it indirectly regulates the standard clauses of online consumption contracts by standardizing the contents of online contracts and the information disclosure obligations of service providers and e-commerce. The Guide to Consumer Protection in E-commerce adopted by OECD 1999 stipulates that e-commerce should pay due attention to the interests of consumers and conduct transactions in accordance with the principle of fair business; There shall be no deceptive, misleading behaviors such as false statements and other unreasonable risk allocation behaviors, which will harm the interests of consumers; At any time, e-commerce should provide consumers with their own electronic contact information such as name, address, e-mail address or telephone number, registration number or license number in a clear, obvious, accurate and easy-to-learn way, communicate with enterprises quickly, simply and effectively, and solve disputes in ways, ways and laws, and must not use the characteristics of e-commerce to conceal their true identity or address or not provide the above information; Electronic merchants should provide sufficient information such as terms, conditions, fees, delivery or performance period, correct instructions for use, effective after-sales service, guarantee, cancellation, termination, return, exchange, refund, currency use and so on, which are of great significance to consumers in deciding whether to trade; We should follow the legal mechanism of consumer protection and should not use unfair contract terms. In addition, the current Law on the Protection of Consumers' Rights and Interests in Brazil, the Consumer Credit Law promulgated by the United Kingdom 1974, the Law on the Protection of Speakers in Communication Education promulgated by Germany 1976, the Law on the Termination of Contracts by Consumers in Visiting Sales and Similar Transactions promulgated by Germany 1985, and the Law of Taiwan Province Province of China

Looking at the legal provisions of the above-mentioned countries on consumer contracts concluded in different places by means of communication such as the Internet, the laws of various countries have two similar characteristics in regulating such consumer contracts. First, protect consumers' right to know by stipulating that businesses or operators have the obligation to fully and timely disclose relevant information. Based on the characteristics of non-contact and non-negotiation in the process of contract conclusion, in order to protect consumers' rights and interests, merchants or operators must provide consumers with important information related to consumers' rights and interests in a comprehensive, sufficient and timely manner, and provide consumers with the opportunity to reasonably review the terms of the contract, so that consumers' right to know can be truly realized; The second is through prescribed consumption.

Revocation right (withdrawal right) or hesitation period (cooling-off period) gives consumers the right to cancel the contract or

Consumers have the right to choose whether to terminate the contract within a certain period of time after receiving the transaction confirmation or goods, and only bear the reasonable expenses arising therefrom.

Ensure that consumers' right to choose and fair trade can be truly realized.

At present, there is no legislation directly aimed at online consumption contracts in China, but the current Consumer Protection Law stipulates the format clauses in format contracts or consumption contracts. The law stipulates that business operators shall not make unfair and unreasonable provisions to consumers by means of standard contracts, notices, statements, shop notices, etc. , or reduce or exempt its civil liability for harming the legitimate rights and interests of consumers. If the format contract, notice, statement and shop notice contain the contents listed in the preceding paragraph, their contents are invalid. Although the above provisions of the Consumer Protection Law are not directed at online consumption contracts, the current Consumer Protection Law should still be applied as the general law for consumer protection in the absence of special laws or no special laws. The current contract law also regulates the standard clauses. According to the provisions of this law, if a contract is concluded by standard terms, the party providing the standard terms should follow the principle of fairness to determine the rights and obligations between the parties, and take reasonable measures to draw the attention of the other party to the terms exempting or limiting its liability, and explain the terms according to the requirements of the other party. The standard clauses are fraudulent, which cover up the illegal purpose in a legal form, damage the public welfare, violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, and cause personal injury to the other party, or cause property losses to the other party due to intentional or gross negligence, or if the party providing the standard clauses exempts the other party's responsibilities, aggravates the other party's responsibilities, and excludes the other party's main rights, the clauses are invalid 31; If there is any dispute about the understanding of the standard terms, it shall be interpreted according to the usual understanding. If there are more than two interpretations of the standard terms, an interpretation that is unfavorable to the party providing the standard terms shall be made. Where the standard clauses are inconsistent with the non-standard clauses, Article 32 of the non-standard clauses shall be adopted. Judging from the relevant provisions of Article 33 of the Contract Law, the above provisions should be applied to the format clauses in online consumption contracts. However, from the above-mentioned provisions of China's Consumer Protection Law and Contract Law as well as the relevant provisions of foreign countries, from the perspective of consumer rights protection, there are also two defects in the regulation of standard clauses in consumer contracts: first, there are no specific provisions on consumers' right to know and the safeguard measures to realize it, which makes consumers unable to effectively protect their legitimate rights and interests in the face of standard clauses and often unable to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests in the process of dispute settlement; Second, from the point of view of network contract, the realization of consumers' right to choose lacks a guarantee system, such as the right to cancel during the hesitation period. Because consumers' right to choose and know is often difficult to realize only by one sentence from the other party, in order to protect consumers' right to choose and know, consumers should be given the right to terminate the general contract within a certain period after the conclusion of the contract.

Third, the jurisdiction of disputes over online consumption contracts.

(A) the jurisdiction of ordinary consumers' contract disputes

As for the jurisdiction of ordinary contract disputes, the principle is generally the jurisdiction of the court where the defendant has his domicile or where the contract is performed. However, the above-mentioned rules for establishing jurisdiction are usually limited by two aspects: first, jurisdiction by agreement, that is, the parties can choose the court of jurisdiction through agreement, as long as the agreement meets the specific formal requirements; The second is the mandatory provisions of the law on protective jurisdiction. Based on the consideration of protecting consumers' rights and interests, countries generally implement protective jurisdiction over consumer contract disputes, that is, the exclusive jurisdiction of consumers' domicile. However, there are two issues worthy of attention: first, whether the consumer contract can exclude the application of this principle through agreement; Second, whether this principle is applicable to online consumption contracts. For the former, 1968 Brussels Convention on the Jurisdiction of the European Union (Brussels Convention), 1980 Convention on the Law Applicable to the Contractual Obligations of the European Union (Rome Convention), and 1988 Locarno Convention (applicable between the European Union and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA)

Judging from the contents of the Brussels Convention, the principle of jurisdiction of the defendant's domicile applies to ordinary contract disputes, but the parties can exclude the application of this principle through agreement, as long as the agreement meets the corresponding conditions. For consumer contract disputes, the consumer's domicile shall be implemented.

Jurisdiction principle; Different from the jurisdiction of ordinary contracts, in general, the principle of jurisdiction of consumers' domicile takes precedence over the jurisdiction agreement of the parties. According to the provisions of this convention, there are three kinds of consumer contracts: one is the contract for the sale of goods by installment; The second is a loan contract for installment repayment or a credit contract for the sale of other commodities; 3. Other contracts for the provision of goods or services that meet the following conditions: (1) Contracts concluded by sending invitations or advertisements to consumers in their countries of residence; (b) The consumer has taken necessary measures to conclude the contract; Regarding the jurisdiction of consumer contracts, the convention stipulates that consumers can sue in the country where the defendant is domiciled or in their own domicile; The other party can only sue the consumer in the country where the consumer lives. Although the Convention applies the principle of the jurisdiction of the consumer's domicile to consumer contracts, it also stipulates that the application of this principle can be excluded by agreement if one of the following conditions is met: 1. The agreement was concluded after the dispute occurred; 2. The agreement allows consumers to sue outside the place specified in this part, or 3. Both parties have their domicile or habitual residence in the same country when concluding the agreement, and the agreement authorizes the courts of that country to exercise jurisdiction, as long as the agreement does not violate the laws of that country. In addition, the convention also stipulates that when a defendant has a contract dispute with a consumer because of his branch, agent or other functional organization, the consumer may bring a lawsuit at the location of the branch, agent or other functional organization. The Rome Convention and the Locarno Convention have provisions similar to those of the Brussels Convention.

(2) Jurisdiction over disputes over online consumption contracts

As for whether the online consumption contract applies the principle of jurisdiction of the consumer's domicile, there is no unified international convention that clearly stipulates it. Judging from the provisions of the Brussels Convention, only the provisions of article 13 and article 5, paragraph 5, are relevant to consumer contracts. However, from the specific content of the above terms, it is not clear whether it is applicable to online consumption contracts. The problems mainly lie in five aspects: first, the understanding of commodities, digital products and services, that is, whether digital products belong to the provisions of article 1 and article 13, paragraph 2. If it is not a commodity, is it a "service" as stipulated in the third paragraph of Article 13? Second, whether the contract concluded through the network meets the conditions of paragraph 3 of Article 13, that is, whether the web pages provided by electronic merchants through the website belong to advertisements and specific invitations); For consumers; Third, how to understand the third paragraph (1) of Article 13 "The contract is concluded in the country where the consumer has his domicile"; Fourth, how to understand "the necessary steps to conclude a contract"; Fifth, whether the website belongs to the "branch, agency or functional organization" as stipulated in the fifth paragraph of Article 5. In order to meet the needs of the development of e-commerce, the European Commission put forward a proposal on the jurisdiction of consumers' contracts under the environment of e-commerce to replace the above provisions of the Brussels Convention. According to this proposal, online consumers can sue e-commerce that provides goods or services in their country of residence, even if both parties have explicitly agreed to waive the application of this clause. To this end, consumers only need to prove through the network that businesses sell goods or provide services in the country where consumers live. 46. This proposal has aroused strong opposition from the business community, who are worried that applying the existing contract rules for multinational consumers to the online trading environment will not only make them face legal uncertainty, but also increase their business costs, thus hindering the development of e-commerce. They believe that the existing consumer contract rules cannot effectively protect consumers in cross-border legal disputes, and the online consumer contract rules and legal application rules should adopt the principle of "country of origin" embodied in most EU information service legislation.

The Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act (UCITA) passed by the United States in 1999 stipulates that both parties to an online consumer contract can choose the court of jurisdiction by agreement; Unless explicitly stipulated in the agreement, the forum chosen by the agreement is not exclusive. At the same time, the law further stipulates that both parties cannot change the mandatory provisions of the Consumer Protection Law through agreement. If the terms of the contract violate the basic public policy, the court may refuse to execute the contract; Unless otherwise specified, if there is any conflict between this Law and the Consumer Protection Law, Article 50 of the Consumer Protection Law shall prevail. It can be seen that in the United States, the jurisdiction of online consumer contracts is no different from that of traditional consumer contracts, and the principle of consumer domicile still applies. In Canada, although there is no legal provision on the jurisdiction of online consumption contracts at present, in 1998, the Colombian Federal Court of Appeal adopted the principle of the buyer's domicile jurisdiction 5 1 in its judgment on the case of the jurisdiction of online commodity sales contracts. According to the Report on the Protection of Consumers' Rights and Interests in E-commerce submitted by Canadian Industry Association 1998 in March, the traditional principle of jurisdiction of consumers' domicile should still be applied to online consumption contracts. Therefore, the current legislation should be amended to take the place where the online consumption contract is concluded as the domicile of the consumer, so as to achieve the purpose of applying the traditional principle of jurisdiction of the domicile of the consumer to the online consumption contract. In Brazil, although there are no special provisions on the jurisdiction of online consumption contracts, scholars believe that according to the provisions of Article 10 1 of the Law on the Protection of Consumers' Rights and Interests, online consumption contracts still apply to the jurisdiction principle of traditional consumers' domicile 53.

China's Consumer Protection Law and Civil Procedure Law have no special provisions on the jurisdiction of consumer contract disputes, so the general provisions of Civil Procedure Law can only be applied, that is, the jurisdiction of the court in the defendant's domicile or the place where the contract is performed can also be agreed. Obviously, this situation in China's legislation is neither in line with the general principle of international jurisdiction over consumer contract disputes, nor conducive to the protection of consumers' rights and interests.

We believe that although the Internet has changed the traditional trading means and trading environment to a certain extent, adopting the principle of the jurisdiction of consumers' domicile for the contract jurisdiction of online consumers may make e-commerce face the uncertainty of applicable laws and increase costs, but corresponding measures can be taken to prevent some consumers (in countries unfamiliar with the law) from conducting electronic transactions with them, thus avoiding the uncertainty of legal application and reducing unnecessary costs; Accordingly, the online trading environment not only failed to improve the weak position of consumers, but made their situation even more unfavorable. If consumers lack confidence in seeking domestic legal protection, e-commerce cannot flourish. Even if the existing consumer contract rules can't effectively protect consumers in cross-border legal disputes, such rules (the principle of jurisdiction of consumers' domicile) still have important symbolic value for consumers' confidence in using the Internet to conduct transactions. Therefore, the economic foundation and social foundation of consumer protection still exist, and the concept of consumer protection should still be popularized under the network environment. Based on this kind of thinking, we think that the jurisdiction of online consumer contracts should still adhere to the principle of jurisdiction of consumers' domicile, that is, when there is no jurisdiction option clause or the option clause is invalid, it will be under the jurisdiction of the court of consumers' domicile; At the same time, consumers' free choice is respected, unless the exercise of free choice violates the mandatory provisions of law or social order.

Fourthly, the legal application of online consumption contracts.

(A) the legal application of traditional consumer contracts

Traditionally, when an ordinary transnational contract dispute is submitted to the court, the court must determine the substantive law to adjust the contract dispute. Because the right of both parties to choose the applicable law of the contract has long been the basic principle of private international law in common law system and civil law system, and it is an important content of freedom of contract. Therefore, when determining the application of law, the court should usually first consider the application of the law chosen by both parties (unless a choice law prohibits it); Secondly, if the parties do not choose the applicable law, the court will determine the applicable law by itself. When the court determines the law application of contract disputes by itself, it usually follows three principles: first, it should follow the provisions of the law of choice (that is, conflict law); The second is to determine the country most closely related to the dispute; The third is to find the country whose government is most interested in the outcome of the dispute. When determining the applicable law by itself, if the dispute involves public interests, the court usually applies domestic law or international law recognized by the country; On the contrary, if the dispute involves private rights, the court is likely to choose the law of the country most closely related to the outcome of the dispute.

In the process of concluding a typical consumer contract, due to the unequal economic strength of both parties, there is a lack of mutual consultation. Among them, the party with stronger economic strength often imposes its will on the weak consumers by providing standard contracts. If the dominant party can avoid applying the consumer protection rules of a certain country by providing a standard contract with a choice of law clause, then the freedom of contract is actually only the freedom of one party to choose the applicable law of the contract. Therefore, it is necessary to restrict this freedom of contract properly through legislation to protect consumers from the adverse effects of unfair "choice of law" clauses, which involves the effectiveness of choice of law clauses. It is generally believed that the choice of law clause, as a part of the contract, should be different from the whole contract in form and effect. When determining the law to adjust the effectiveness of the choice of law clause, there are usually four kinds of laws to choose from: one is to apply the law of the place of litigation; The second is the choice of law; The third is the applicable law when there is no choice of law clause or the choice of law clause is rejected by a fixed rule; Fourth, the law should be applied at the discretion of the court. International conventions generally take the second approach. Judging from the provisions of international conventions, the effectiveness of this optional clause is generally recognized, but it is restricted by two aspects: First, it is restricted by the mandatory rules on consumer protection in the place where consumers live. According to the provisions of the Rome Convention, the parties are free to choose the law applicable to the contract 61; Unless the chosen law impairs the application of the mandatory provisions of the country only related to the contract; The contract is subject to the legal adjustment chosen by both parties; Second, eliminate