中国法上消费者合同中欺诈构成要件
The Elements of Fraud in Consumer Contracts under Chinese Law
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
在中国法上,消费者合同中欺诈的重要意义在于其具有惩罚性赔偿的 法效果,其法律关系与法律后果相较与民法上的欺诈有特殊性. 长期以 来,消费欺诈的构成要件存在争议. 有观点认为消费欺诈是消费者法的特 殊制度,在过错、因果关系方面无须完全符合民法上欺诈的要件. 本文认 为,在适用消费欺诈惩罚性赔偿时首先应以客观经营者视角判定购买者 是否“为生活消费需要”而购买商品或服务,“知假买假者”可被视为消费者. 消费欺诈中经营者的过错仅以故意为限,不包含重大过失,但应对欺诈 的举证责任和证明标准予以缓和,消费者仅须提出证明欺诈存在的初步 证据即可. 消费者因欺诈而做出购买行为的因果关系要件不应被抛弃. 评 价因果关系时,应结合具体消费场景以具备一般生活经验及认知能力的普 通理性消费者为标准,“知假买假者”因不具备因果关系要件而不能请求消 费欺诈惩罚性赔偿.
Abstract
In Chinese law, the significance of fraud in consumer contracts lies in the legal effect of punitive damages. The legal relation and legal consequences of consumption fraud are more exceptional than those in civil law. For a long time, there have been disputes regarding the constitutive elements of consumer fraud. Some argue that consumption fraud is a special institution in consumer law, and does not require complete conformity with the elements of fraud under civil law in terms of fault and causality. This article contends that when applying consumption fraud provision, the first step should be to determine from an objective business operator’s perspective whether the purchaser acquires goods or services “for daily consumption”. People who “intentionally purchase counterfeit goods” can be regarded as consumers. The fault of business operators in consumption fraud is limited to intention and does not encompass gross negligence. Nevertheless, the burden of proof and the standard of proof for fraud should be mitigated. Consumers are only required to present preliminary evidence of fraud. The causality element, i.e., consumers’ purchasing behavior resulting from fraud, shouldn’t be disregarded. The causality should be based on the standard of an ordinary rational consumer with general life experience and cognitive ability in specific consumption scenarios. Due to the absence of the element of causality, People who “intentionally purchase counterfeit goods” cannot claim punitive damages for consumption fraud.
참고문헌 (32)
- 梁慧星, "民法总论" (2020), 法律出版社
- 李昌麟, "消费者保护法" (2021), 法律出版社
- 崔吉子, "东亚消费者合同法比较研究" (2013), 北京大学出版社
- 杨代雄, "民法总论" (2022), 北京大学出版社
- 韩世远, "合同法总论" (2018), 法律出版社
- 李适时, "中华人民共和国消费者权益保护法释义 (最新修正版)" (2013), 法律出版社
- 河山, "论“缺一赔十”的惩罚性赔偿思想", 法律适用, (8) (1993)
- 郭道, "市场经济与法制现代化——座谈会发言摘要", 法学研究, (2) (1992)
- 徐广兵, "消费者概念之法律意义再审视", 法学论丛, (7) (2011)
- 马一德, "解构与重构:“消费者”概念再出发", 法学评论, (6) (2015)
- 王利明, "消费者的概念及消费者权益保护法的调整范围", 政治与法律, (2) (2002)
- 周柏峰, "论德国民法之消费者概念", 政大法学评论, (175)
- 贾亦凡, "众说纷纭的“王海现象”", 新闻记者, (2) (1996)
- 谢勇, "适用食品药品惩罚性赔偿制度的政策目标、法律依据和政策路径", 法律适用, (7) (2024)
- 董春华, "论<消费者权益保护法>第五十五条第一款惩罚性赔偿适用的界定", 河南财经政法大学学报, (5) (2021)
- 冉克平, "论汽车经销商的缔约欺诈及惩罚性赔偿", 广东社会科学, (2) (2020)
- 谢晓尧, "欺诈:一种竞争法的理论诠释——兼论<消费者权益保护法>第49条的适用与完善", 现代法学, (2) (2003)
- 高志宏, "再论消费欺诈行为的构成要件", 法学, (6) (2023)
- 张平华, "<民法典>上的惩罚性赔偿法定主义及其规范要求", 法学杂志, (4) (2023)
- 张继成, "对“知道”“应当知道”“明知”及其关联概念的法逻辑诠释", 法学, (6) (2023)
- 王雷, "惩罚性赔偿的证明难题及其缓解", 国家检察官学院学报, (4) (2020)
- 朱广新, "美国惩罚性赔偿制度探究", 比较法研究, (3) (2022)
- 陆青, "论消费者保护法上的告知义务——兼评最高人民法院第17号指导性案例", 清华法学, (4) (2014)
- 肖斌, "<消费者权益保护法>中“欺诈行为”的认定", 河北法学, (10) (2015)
- 罗昆, "消费欺诈的认定及其私法效果", 当代法学, (4) (2023)
- 韩世远, "消费者合同三题:知假买假、惩罚性赔偿与合同终了", 法律适用, (10) (2015)
- 马一德, "虚假宣传构成欺诈之认定", 法律科学 (西北政法大学学报), (6) (2014)
- 董淳锷, "经营者欺诈司法判定规则的体系研究", 社会科学, (9) (2023)
- 朱广新, "惩罚性赔偿制度的演进和适用", 中国社会科学, (3) (2014)
- 吴汉东, "知识产权惩罚性赔偿的私法基础与司法适用", 法学评论, (3) (2021)
- 谢勇, "论我国消费惩罚性赔偿责任构成要件、适用规则及制度完善", 法律适用, (7) (2024)
- 梁慧星, "<消费者保护法>第49条的解释与适用", 人民法院报, ~ (2001)
