The plaintiff in the case is Ms. VLC (born in 1983, residing in Thu Duc City); the defendant is Citigym Company headquartered in District 10.
According to the notice of acceptance of District 10 People's Court, Ms. VLC's petition requests the court to resolve and declare the coaching contracts and membership contracts such as: Membership contract No. LLV-MB230613470197 dated June 13, 2023, Coaching contract No. LVV-PT230520461336 dated May 20, 2023, Coaching contract No. LVV_PT230529464167 dated May 29, 2023, Coaching contract No. LVV-PT230620473937 dated June 20, 2023, Coaching contract No. LVV-PT230706478641 dated July 6, 2023, Coaching contract No. LVV-PT230820501764 dated August 20, 2023 signed between Ms. VLC and Citigym Company are "invalid".
In addition, Ms. C. required Citigym Company to refund more than 3.2 billion VND (corresponding to the training sessions she did not use: 7,202 sessions x 450,000 VND). Ms. C. did not request Citigym Company to pay interest or compensate for damages.

According to the case file, in the lawsuit, Ms. C. stated that in 2023, Citigym contacted her to advertise and invite her to participate in health improvement training courses. She came to register for a trial and believed the advertisement, so she signed a membership contract with Citigym for a period of 24 months, worth more than 57.9 million VND (Membership contract No.: LVV_MB230613470197 dated June 13, 2023.
In addition, during her training at Citigym - District 9 Branch (now Thu Duc City), she was guided and supported by the trainers during her training and invited to buy a new training package with many promises and attractive incentives.
Because of her trust, Ms. C. consecutively signed 5 coaching contracts with Citigym Company within 3 months (from May 20, 2023 to August 20, 2023). The total of 5 coaching contracts and 1 membership contract (mentioned above) is more than 3.4 billion VND. According to the contract, Ms. C. is entitled to use a total of 7,485 training sessions. Ms. C. practiced 283 sessions (the remaining 7,202 training sessions were not used), but she investigated and found that the process of signing and implementing the contract and many terms in the contract were disadvantageous to her.
Specifically: during the process of signing the contract with Citigym, the coach did not provide her with full information about the number of training sessions according to the contracts. After carefully reviewing the content of the contracts, Ms. C. learned that she had to continuously participate in training for 41 years, with a total of 7,485 training sessions to complete the contracts; this was completely inconsistent with her health condition... Realizing that there were many signs of customer deception, Ms. C. filed a lawsuit.
According to the contracts provided by Ms. C., the contracts were signed between her and the representative of Citigym Company named NHV. The contracts do not have the Citigym Company stamp.

Through studying the documents and evidence provided by Ms. C., Lawyer Bui Khac Long, Ho Chi Minh City Bar Association, stated: "The trainer contracts and membership contracts signed between Citigym and Ms. C. are standard contracts. Therefore, the process of signing, implementing, and the content of these standard contracts must comply with the provisions of Article 405 of the 2015 Civil Code, Articles 23 to 26 of the Law on Consumer Protection 2023 and the Law on Enterprises 2020.
However, through research, it was found that there were many provisions in the contract that were disadvantageous to the consumer, Ms. C., and violated the prohibitions of the law, showing signs of the contract being invalid. Specifically, all contracts signed by Ms. C. with Citigym's representative named NHV. However, through comparison with Citigym's Business Registration Certificate, Ms. V. was not the legal representative. The contract also did not mention that Ms. Vy was legally authorized to enter into the contract. In addition, the contracts were not stamped with Citigym's seal. Thus, the signing of the above contracts violated the provisions of Clause 1, Article 12 of the 2020 Enterprise Law; Article 137 of the 2015 Civil Code.
In addition, the content of the contracts contains many provisions that violate the prohibitions stipulated in Article 10 and Article 25 of the Law on Consumer Protection 2023, such as: "Limiting or excluding the legal liability of business organizations towards consumers; Allowing business organizations to transfer liability to third parties without the consent of consumers; Provisions contrary to the principle of good faith as prescribed by civil law...".
To clarify the issue further, on April 9, the reporter contacted Ms. NHV, the representative of Citigym Company who signed the above contracts. After listening to the presentation, Ms. V. said that she would take note of the information and notify the company of the response.
* People's Representative Newspaper continues to inform readers and voters nationwide.
Source: https://daibieunhandan.vn/khach-hang-tai-tp-ho-chi-minh-khoi-kien-cong-ty-citigym-post409688.html
Comment (0)