紅米Note3發(fā)生自燃 用戶簽署保密協(xié)議后才獲賠
據(jù)《北京晨報》報道，一位消費(fèi)者于2016年3月購買的一部紅米Note3智能手機(jī)在12月21日充電時發(fā)生自燃。
A Xiaomi official promised to refund andcompensate the consumer on the condition of hersigning a confidentiality agreement, prohibiting herfrom commenting publicly on the event.
小米一位官方人士承諾對其進(jìn)行退款和賠償，但是前提是該消費(fèi)者簽署一份保密協(xié)議，即禁止她公開對此事進(jìn)行評論。
The woman, surnamed Zhang, said that the phone started to discharge smoke 10 minutesafter it began charging on Dec. 21. It then spontaneously combusted, burning the SIM cardand her bed sheets.
這位姓張的女士表示，這部手機(jī)于12月21日在充電10分鐘后就開始冒煙。而后發(fā)生自燃，把她的SIM卡和床單都給燒了。
Zhang added that she used the original charging device and did not know what caused thephone's combustion.
張女士補(bǔ)充說道，她使用的是原裝充電器，但是不知道是什么造成了手機(jī)自燃。
After several conversations with the Xiaomi's customer service representatives, Zhang waspromised a full refund plus an additional 600 RMB($86) as compensation -- just as long asshe agreed to sign a confidentiality agreement.
在與小米客服代表進(jìn)行數(shù)次溝通后，張女士獲得了全額退款，外加600元人民幣(86美元)的賠償--只要她同意簽署一份保密協(xié)議。
"The agreement prohibited me from commenting on the event to any media outlets, or onpublic networks or communication platforms. It was like hush money," said Zhang, whoultimately agreed to sign the agreement.
最終同意簽署該協(xié)議的張女士說道：“協(xié)議要求我不得在任何媒體、公共網(wǎng)絡(luò)和其它任何傳播平臺發(fā)表此事處理的言論。這哪里像賠償，簡直就是封口費(fèi)。”
Not long after, however, a Beijing-based lawyer, Zhang Xinnian, argued that the confidentialityclause in the agreement was invalid. The merchant's intention to cover up the complaint goesagainst relevant provisions of contract law.
然而不久之后，北京一位名叫張新年的律師稱，協(xié)議中的保密條款無效。廠家的目的是為了掩蓋投訴，這有違《合同法》的相關(guān)規(guī)定。
Zhang also pointed out that, as there are so many Xiaomi smartphones on the market, theAdministration for Industry and Commerce must launch a prompt investigation to minimizepotential risks, ensuring the legitimate rights and interests of consumers.
張律師還指出，由于市場上存在大量小米智能手機(jī)，因此工商部門必須立刻展開調(diào)查，將潛在危險降至最低，保證消費(fèi)者們的合法權(quán)益。
