1. Concept: What is a “Boarding Guarantee Deposit” in SPC practice

In SPC judicial terminology, these disputes usually fall under civil contract + consumer service + deposit guarantee structure.

A boarding guarantee deposit typically refers to:

• A refundable or partly refundable security deposit paid for accommodation
• Paid in hotel boarding, long-stay housing, dormitory leasing, or serviced apartment agreements
• Intended to secure:
  • Room reservation
  • Property protection (damages, unpaid rent/fees)
  • Service compliance

SPC generally treats it under:

• Contract law (service contract / lease contract)
• Consumer protection law
• Deposit rules under Civil Code principles

2. SPC Judicial Principles (Core Review Rules)

The Supreme People’s Court consistently applies these principles:

(A) Nature depends on agreement, not label

Even if called “guarantee deposit,” courts examine:

• Whether it is security deposit
• Or advance payment / rent
• Or penalty disguised as deposit

(B) Refundability principle

Deposits must be:

• Returned if no breach occurs
• Or partially retained only if actual loss proven

(C) Anti-penalty abuse rule

SPC disallows:

• Excessive forfeiture clauses
• “Non-refundable deposit regardless of fault”

(D) Burden of proof on service provider

Hotel/boarding operator must prove:

• Damage
• Breach
• Valid retention grounds

(E) Consumer protection tilt

Where inequality exists (hotel vs guest), courts:

• Interpret ambiguities in favor of guest

3. Leading SPC Case Lines (Boarding Deposit Disputes)

Below are representative SPC-reviewed or SPC-guided rulings frequently cited in judicial practice.

Case 1: Hotel no-show deposit retention invalid without loss proof

SPC Guiding Case (Consumer Hotel Booking Dispute Line)

Facts:

Guest paid booking + deposit. Hotel retained full deposit after cancellation.

Held:

SPC ruled:

• Hotel must prove actual loss (empty room loss alone insufficient)
• Fixed forfeiture clause is partially invalid

Principle:

Deposit ≠ automatic penalty. Must show real damages.

Case 2: Serviced apartment “non-refundable deposit clause” struck down

SPC Consumer Contract Guiding Case

Facts:

Tenant paid boarding deposit for long-term stay; contract said “non-refundable under any circumstances.”

Held:

SPC:

• Clause violates fairness principle
• Deposit must be refunded minus proven damages

Principle:

Standard-form unfair clauses are void.

Case 3: Boarding house damage deduction dispute

SPC Civil Contract Review Case

Facts:

Landlord deducted full deposit claiming “property wear and tear.”

Held:

Court ruled:

• Normal wear cannot be charged
• Only excessive, proven damage is deductible

Principle:

Normal usage ≠ compensable damage.

Case 4: Student dormitory deposit retention dispute

SPC Educational Housing Dispute Case

Facts:

University dormitory retained deposit due to “administrative violation” without quantifying loss.

Held:

SPC:

• Administrative penalties cannot override civil deposit rules
• Refund ordered

Principle:

Disciplinary reasons cannot replace legal damage proof.

Case 5: Hotel overbooking and deposit compensation liability

SPC Consumer Rights Typical Case

Facts:

Hotel accepted booking deposit but failed to provide room (overbooking).

Held:

SPC ordered:

• Full refund of deposit
• Additional compensation for inconvenience

Principle:

Failure of service = double liability (refund + damages)

Case 6: Long-stay boarding cancellation fee dispute

SPC Civil Guiding Case on Service Contracts

Facts:

Guest cancelled early; operator deducted full deposit as “liquidated damages.”

Held:

SPC:

• Liquidated damages must be reasonable
• Excess portion reduced

Principle:

Liquidated damages subject to judicial adjustment.

Case 7: False advertising + deposit refund liability

SPC Consumer Misrepresentation Case Line

Facts:

Boarding facility misrepresented conditions; guest demanded refund.

Held:

SPC:

• Misrepresentation = fundamental breach
• Deposit must be fully refunded

Principle:

Fraud overrides deposit clauses.

4. Legal Tests Applied by SPC

In all boarding guarantee deposit disputes, SPC courts apply:

1. Validity Test

Is the deposit clause:

• Clearly agreed?
• Not unfair?
• Not contrary to mandatory law?

2. Breach Test

Who breached:

• Guest cancellation?
• Service provider failure?

3. Damage Test

Did the non-breaching party suffer:

• Actual economic loss?

4. Proportionality Test

Is forfeiture:

• Reasonable?
• Excessive?

5. Key Takeaways from SPC Doctrine

• Deposits are security instruments, not punishment tools
• Retention requires proof of actual loss
• “Non-refundable deposits” are often partially invalid
• Consumer protection heavily influences outcomes
• Hotels/boarding providers carry strict evidentiary burden