First of all, according to what you said, this is just a civil act. No violation of public order, no criminal offence. How can it be said that it is illegal? This idea is fundamentally wrong and belongs to the lack of basic legal knowledge.

Why is this idea wrong? Because this matter is a civil issue and a civil act, even if there are problems, disputes with students and buyers are also civil disputes. How can it be related to violation of law and discipline? To say the least, this canteen, or canteen, refused to serve food after collecting money, or changed the date and so on. This is also a breach of contract in civil disputes, not an illegal act! -Breach of contract and breaking the law are two different concepts.

Violation of law, in the usual context, refers to illegal and criminal acts of public security, that is, cases under the jurisdiction of public security organs; If such cases need to be reported to the police, they shall be investigated by the public security organs, and then transferred to the procuratorate for public prosecution, which shall be decided by the court.

Breach of contract is a civil dispute In this case, the parties should bring a lawsuit to the court with jurisdiction, and the court will make a civil judgment instead of calling the police.

-at a glance. Think about it. Even if there is something wrong with this canteen, as mentioned above, is it to call the police to let the public security organs intervene to catch the boss, or to go to court to sue and demand compensation from the other party? This is something anyone can think of.

Therefore, even if this canteen is at fault in civil behavior, it is also a civil dispute and a breach of contract, not what you call "illegal".

Secondly, according to what you said, every meal ticket has a date, and the meal ticket that has not been eaten has a refund date limit, and it will be invalid when it expires. This rule is a bit overbearing, but it is not even a "breach of contract".

The deadline is unilaterally announced by the canteen, no problem. As long as he agrees in advance and does not change it without authorization, it is not a breach of contract. Whether you are a student, a parent or a teacher, you bought a meal ticket on the premise of knowing the seller's agreement, which means that you accepted the other party's offer and agreed to the other party's terms. This is no problem. How can it be considered a breach of contract, not a breach of contract, and not illegal?

I wonder, when you go shopping, the seller has the final say. Isn't this a natural thing? If it is not a "unilateral announcement" by the seller, should it be jointly announced with the buyer? This is illogical.

As for the refund, there is a date, and it is normal to expire. And the person who bought the ticket also accepted this clause-don't buy it unless you accept it.

Of course, this clause may be a bit harsh for students, and it even means "overlord clause", but it is not illegal. The seller has the right to propose, that is, what you call "unilateral declaration" You don't have to buy it if you don't accept it. Things are bound to happen in school. There is no equal relationship between students and schools.

If you really think there is something wrong with this clause, you can raise it with the school or complain to the consumer association.