网络购物标价错误的法律救济

发布时间：2018-04-23 13:28

本文选题：网络购物 + 标价错误　；参考：《西南政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：本文的研究成果在于，通过对合同的成立要件、可撤销行为中的重大误解和显失公平和因错误撤销的损害赔偿责任进行具体详细的阐述和分析，解决了网络购物标价错误的一系列争议问题。本文在论述过程中形成的自己的观点，对于完善我国现行合同法体系、构建电子商务法体系有很好的借鉴作用。更主要地，也即本文的初衷，是为解决现代社会生活中大量存在的网络购物纠纷提供司法指导意见，使得不论是消费者还是经营者在遭遇如此问题时都能够得到合理的法律救济。本文分为六大部分：第一部分，案例及引出的问题。通过大陆的当当网809错价门案和台湾戴尔案两起网络购物标价错误案例，分析诉争双方的主张和法院判决内容，引出本文要探讨的问题，这些问题分别在文章第二、三、四、五部分得到解答。第二部分，网络购物合同的成立。合同通过要约和承诺的方式成立，网络购物合同要约和承诺的具体所指是讨论重点。商品销售网页不能简单界定为要约或者要约邀请，应从要约的构成要件进行分析。在现行法未作具体规定的情况下，交易条款作为格式条款应被订入合同，承认其效力。购物网站发出的订单确认信的性质，实务中也存在争议，需要分情形具体讨论。没有法律规定付款一定是合同成立之后的履行行为，故应按照交易条款之规定判断合同成立与否，而非有付款行为即为合同成立。第三部分，标价错误撤销合同的适用条件。网络购物标价错误的经营者可以重大误解请求撤销合同，只是法院在面临此类案件时，需要综合考虑是否存在价格错误，根据网络购物的具体情形进行判断，如商品销售网页明确载明“促销”字样，认定重大误解时就须严格审查。另外，还须考虑经营者是否因标价错误存在重大损失，即商品市场价与网站标价之间是否存在较大差距；以及排除经营者存在故意和重大过失心理状态的情形。第四部分，标价错误撤销合同的法律后果。认为因错误撤销合同的损害赔偿责任应为信赖责任，最好在电子商务相关立法中对网络购物标价错误事件的经营者赔偿责任作统一明确的规定，使其具有一定的惩罚性和威慑力，促使经营者在以后的网络销售中更加谨慎，也使产生合理信赖并有所付出的消费者获得相应的补偿。第五部分，显失公平原因适用的可能性。如果主客观要件同时具备、符合显失公平构成要件，经营者也可以显失公平为由请求撤销合同；同时构成重大误解的，经营者可以选择其一。实践中，因为显失公平的构成要件本身存在争议，经营者大多援用能够直接体现标价错误的重大误解制度进行权利救济。第六部分，本文得出的结论。
[Abstract]:The research result of this paper lies in the detailed elaboration and analysis of the elements of contract establishment, the major misunderstandings and obvious injustices in revocable acts and the liability for damages due to wrongful rescission. Has solved the network shopping price mistake a series of controversial questions. This article discusses the process of formation of their own views, for the improvement of the current contract law system, the construction of electronic commerce law system has a good reference. More importantly, the original intention of this paper is to provide judicial guidance for solving the numerous online shopping disputes in modern social life. Both consumers and operators can get reasonable legal remedies when they encounter such problems. This paper is divided into six parts: The first part, the case and the questions raised. Through two wrong online shopping pricing cases, Dangdang 809 mispricing case in mainland China and Taiwan Dell case, this paper analyzes the claims of both parties to the lawsuit and the content of the court judgment, and leads to the problems to be discussed in this paper. These problems are respectively in the second, third, and fourth of the article. Five parts are answered. The second part, the establishment of network shopping contract. The contract is established through offer and acceptance, and the specific indication of offer and acceptance of online shopping contract is the key point of discussion. The web page of merchandise sales can not be defined as an offer or an invitation to offer, but should be analyzed from the elements of the offer. In the absence of specific provisions in the Lex lata, the terms of the transaction shall be entered into the contract as a form clause and shall be recognized as valid. The nature of the order confirmation letter issued by the shopping website is also controversial in practice, which needs to be discussed in detail. There is no law that payment must be an act of performance after the establishment of the contract, so the contract should be judged according to the terms of the transaction, and not the act of payment is the establishment of the contract. The third part, the applicable conditions of the mis-bid rescission contract. Operators with wrong prices for online shopping can make a major misunderstanding and request for rescission of the contract, but when the court is faced with such cases, it needs to consider comprehensively whether there is a price error, and make a judgment according to the specific circumstances of online shopping. If the product sales page clearly contains the word "promotion", it should be strictly reviewed when a major misunderstanding is identified. In addition, it is necessary to consider whether the operator has significant losses due to the price error, that is, whether there is a big gap between the market price of the commodity and the price tag of the website, and to exclude the existence of intentional and gross negligence psychological state of the operator. The fourth part, the legal consequence of the wrong price rescission contract. It is considered that the liability for compensation for damages due to wrongful revocation of contracts should be the liability of trust, and it is better to make a unified and clear provision on the liability of the operators of the wrong online shopping pricing incidents in the relevant legislation of electronic commerce. So that it has a certain punitive and deterrent force, to promote the operator in the future network sales more cautious, but also to produce reasonable trust and pay consumers to get the corresponding compensation. The fifth part is about the possibility of applying the obvious unfair reasons. If the subjective and objective elements are present simultaneously, the operator may also request cancellation of the contract on the grounds of explicit inequity, and if it constitutes a major misunderstanding, the operator may choose one of them. In practice, because there are disputes about the constitutive elements of manifest inequity, most operators invoke the major misunderstanding system which can directly reflect the wrong price of price to carry out right relief. The sixth part, the conclusion of this paper.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D923.6;D920.5

【参考文献】