HTCX-100 is middle-type omnidirectional cell phone jammer

HTCX-100 is middle-type omnidirectional cell phone jammer .
Unicom argued that, first, the plaintiff's litigation exists a common mistake. Because the plaintiff requests the court Unicom unilaterally change the contract null and void from the unilateral change in terms of the request and in accordance with the contract does not exist invalid, null and void only the basis of Article 52 of the "Contract Law" in China. In reality, although the plaintiff free to enjoy the business of "Caller ID" services, but this is not the function of the phone, Unicom Company undertakes no obligation to provide free "Caller ID"; Unicom is not free "Caller ID" to the plaintiff obligations. Unicom to provide the "Caller ID" is a value-added services, the case of "Caller ID" is to choose from. The company has specifically and successfully researched, developed and manufactured cell phone jammer .
In addition to the registration form signed by both parties by the court investigation, no other contract to provide free services to China Unicom in four years time, but this does not rise to the contract; Unicom is no statutory obligations stipulated therein. Unicom, the company had to provide free services can not rise to the legal acts, even if a unilateral legal act, Unicom can unilaterally revoke the act. Unicom, the registration form does not have caller ID charges, but this does not mean that long-term. The basic functions of the phone just call, Caller ID is a supplementary service, is independent of the choice of value-added services. The shielding frequency of cell phone jammer contain 860―885MHZ, 930―960MHZ and 1.800―1.99GHZ.
Since it is a unilateral behavior can be changed, without consultation with customers, the Company undertakes no obligation to provide free services have been. In summary, China Unicom Liu Mao through the prosecution of the facts and reasons there is no legal basis to request the lawful judgment dismissed the plaintiff's claim. Trial, the Court presided over both sides to mediate, but the plaintiff does not consent unsuccessful. Subsequently the court then adjourned the trial, scheduled for sentencing. From the above case, we can see the two standing on each different point of view to explain his own point of view, seems to have some truth. But the focus of the case is never out of the terms of contract law. This can not help but feel a lot of regret. In my view, the introduction of economic law point of view. Here is the model of cell phone jammer .Only by the dealer warranty. This phone regardless of appearance or packaging are authentic licensed exactly the same, there are "three guarantees" card. UNPROFOR licensed warranty: UNPROFOR licensed in the major customer will not be responsible for warranty only by the dealer warranty. the quality of the B-line phone and licensed the same quality between the two, the difference is that after-sales service.