Many consumers, in pursuit of fitness results, choose highly professional personal coaching courses when going to the gym for fitness. Can the fitness agreement be terminated if the previously trusted fitness instructor resigns? Recently, the People's Court of Xuanzhou District, Xuancheng City, Anhui Province heard a dispute over a service contract where a private teacher resigned and a member requested a refund. Teng and a gym in Xuancheng City signed a fitness personal trainer agreement A on July 6, 2022, agreeing that Teng would pay a fee of 9200 yuan and purchase private training courses for 3 months. After the agreement was signed, a certain gym arranged for personal coach Wang to guide Teng in fitness. On September 18 of the same year, Teng signed another agreement B with a certain gym and paid 5760 yuan to purchase 24 private education courses. After the fulfillment of the agreement A signed by both parties and the actual consumption of 2 class hours in the renewed agreement B, coach Wang resigned and Teng did not go to the gym for classes. Later, Teng failed to negotiate a refund with the gym and filed a lawsuit in court, demanding the termination of the service contract between the two parties. The gym will refund the amount not actually consumed and pay corresponding interest. During the trial, the plaintiff Teng stated that during the course, he highly recognized the teaching services and quality of coach Wang, and before communicating and signing the agreement B, he repeatedly mentioned in WeChat that he only recognized Wang as his personal coach. After trial, the court found that Teng and the defendant signed an agreement B with the gym and paid the fees as agreed, forming a legal and effective service contract relationship between the two parties. Private education courses have the special attribute of one-on-one teaching, full trust in the professional quality and service level of the coach. Since the coach Wang resigned from the defendant's gym and cannot continue teaching, the plaintiff Teng claims that the purpose of the contract cannot be achieved, which has factual basis and is supported by the court. The court subsequently ruled that the service contract relationship between the two parties was terminated, and the defendant's gym refunded the plaintiff Teng's remaining course fee of 5280 yuan and paid interest during the period of fund occupation. The judge stated that consumers often choose to purchase private education courses based on their trust in the coach, and private education usually customizes exclusive exercise plans based on the consumer's own physical condition. There is a tacit understanding between the two parties, emphasizing the foundation of trust. When receiving fitness services, consumers generally sign a contract with the gym instead of teaching themselves privately. Therefore, consumers should pay attention to specifying their designated coach in the contract. If a fitness institution makes unilateral adjustments to the contract content, including adjustments to fitness coaches, fitness programs, fitness locations, etc., and consumer rights are damaged, they can take the initiative to protect their rights. (New News Agency)