我国消费者法定反悔权新探
本文选题:消费者 + 反悔权 ; 参考:《武汉理工大学》2012年硕士论文
【摘要】:消费者法定反悔权是顺应保障社会弱势群体这一立法政策的,为实现消费者与经营者间的实质公正、解决现实纠纷提供了有效保障。消费者反悔权在我国部分行政法规、地方性法规、行政规章中有所规定,但是,一方面现有规定的位阶过低,导致反悔权普适性不强,规范效力弱;另一方面,即使在一定范围得以适用,由于对权利的产生、期间、终止、行使方式、行使法律后果缺乏健全的规定,在适用过程中遇到瓶颈。因此,我们有必要借鉴国外有关消费者反悔权的立法,结合我国的立法体系,在狭义法律层面对消费者反悔权立法模式予以构架,对其内容予以探究。 本文分五个部分,通过分析消费者反悔权的现有研究、消费者法定反悔权的一般理论以及国内外有关立法,提出完善我国消费者法定反悔权的立法模式及具体内容的建议。 第一部分,从实践、理论、立法三方面阐述选题意义,进而提出本文研究“我国消费者法定反悔权的立法模式及具体内容”之目的。同时,运用文献研究法,对国内外研究进行综述,构建本文研究思路。 第二部分,首先通过对国内外消费者反悔权概念进行比较分析,用定义法对狭义法律层面的消费者反悔权予以界定,即消费者法定反悔权,是指消费者在消费合同生效之日起,依法律规定,在一定期限内享有的不影响商品或服务二次交易的、无需承担合同责任及行权费用的单方取消交易致合同自始不发生效力的权利。其次,该部分通过比较法将法定反悔权与法定解除权、撤销权予以区分,确定消费者法定反悔权为独立的形成权这一性质。再次,结合案例、实质正义理论、消费者知情权保护及现有立法的局限性,论证消费者法定反悔权存在的必要性。 第三部分,在文义解释的基础上审视英美德关于消费者反悔权的立法,对其有关消费者反悔权的立法模式及具体内容进行简要分析,合理借鉴德国法确定的统一立法模式、较广的适用范围、合理的权利期间、对退回货物风险承担主体的考量以及英美德规定的书面行权方式、相互返还受领的给付之义务、消费者合理保管商品的义务等。 第四部分,对国内消费者反悔权立法现状进行分析,总结国内规定位阶过低,反悔权适用范围窄、起点模糊、期间不一致、终止情形不明确、行使方式规定不全面、行权后原合同效力无规定、行权费用承担主体和内容以及消费者对商品保管和退回商品风险承担的义务不确切等立法不足,为文章最后一部分的制度构建指明切入点。 第五部分,结合我国现有立法架构,借助合同实质正义、差异性平等原则等,在《合同法》、《消费者权益保护法》中对消费者反悔权作统一规定:将其适用范围界定在全部交易领域,同时排除小额交易、易腐蚀变质的商品交易等;确定消费者法定反悔权的起点为合同生效之日,反悔权期间为14日,期间届满、消费者主动放弃等事由可导致反悔权终止;消费者可通过书面、口头等形式直接行使反悔权;反悔权行使后,原消费合同视为自始不生效,消费者退回已收商品并保证不影响二次销售,退回前消费者有合理保管义务,退回中消费者承担毁损灭失风险。此时,经营者返还已收价款,并承担消费者行使反悔权产生的包装、邮寄、运输费用等。
[Abstract]:The right of consumer ' s legal regret is to comply with the legislation policy of protecting the vulnerable groups of society . In order to realize the substantive justice between consumers and operators , the effective guarantee is provided for solving the real disputes . The right of consumers to regret is regulated in some administrative regulations , local regulations and administrative rules of our country , but on the one hand , the level of the existing regulations is too low , which leads to the weak universality of the right of repentance and the weak normative effect ;
On the other hand , even within a certain range , because of the lack of sound regulations on the production , the period , the termination and the exercise of rights and the lack of sound legal consequences , it is necessary to draw lessons from the legislation of foreign consumers ' anti - regret right in the process of application . Therefore , it is necessary to draw on the legislation of our country ' s legislation system , and construct the legislation model of consumer ' s right of regret at the narrow legal level , and explore the content .
This article is divided into five parts , by analyzing the existing research on consumer ' s right to deregret , the general theory of consumer ' s legal right to regret and the relevant legislation at home and abroad , this paper puts forward the legislative model and suggestion of perfecting the right of consumer ' s legal right to regret .
The first part , from the three aspects of practice , theory and legislation , expounds the significance of choosing the subject , and then puts forward the aim of studying the legislative mode and the concrete contents of " the right of the consumers in our country " . At the same time , the article summarizes the domestic and foreign research and constructs the thinking of this paper .
In the second part , firstly , by comparing the concept of consumer ' s right to regret at home and abroad , the definition of consumer ' s right of regret is defined by the definition method .
The third part , on the basis of the literal interpretation , examines the legislation of the right of consumers ' anti - regret , analyzes the legislation pattern and the specific contents of the right of consumers ' remorse , reasonably uses the unified legislative model established by the German law , the broader application range , the reasonable right period , the consideration of the risk of returning the goods and the written line of rights stipulated by the Anglo - American virtue , the obligation to return the received payment , the obligation of the consumer to keep the goods reasonably and so on .
In the fourth part , this paper analyzes the current situation of domestic consumer ' s anti - regret right legislation , summarizes the scope of the domestic regulations , the narrow scope of application scope , the ambiguity of the starting point , the period inconsistency , the termination situation is not clear , the exercise mode is not comprehensive , the effect of the original contract after the right of exercise is not clear , the right expenses bear the subject and the content and the consumer ' s obligation to keep and return the commodity risk is not exact , etc . , and the point of entry is specified for the system construction of the last part of the article .
In the fifth part , according to the existing legislation structure of our country , by means of the principle of substantive justice and difference equality of contract , the consumer ' s right of regret is unified under the law of contract law , consumer ' s rights and interests protection law : the scope of application is defined in the whole transaction field , and the commodity trade , such as small trade and perishable goods , is excluded .
It is determined that the starting point of the consumer ' s legal anti - regret right is the date of the contract entry into force , the period of the right of repentance is 14 days , the period expires , and the consumer ' s active waiver can lead to the termination of the right of regret ;
The consumer may exercise the right of repentance directly in the form of written , oral and other forms ;
After the exercise of the right of repentance , the original consumption contract is deemed to have not entered into force since the beginning , and the consumer returns the returned goods and ensures that it does not affect the secondary sales , the consumer has reasonable custody obligations , and the returned consumer assumes the risk of damage and loss . At this time , the operator returns the accepted price and assumes the packaging , mailing and transportation expenses incurred by the consumer in exercising the right of regret .
【学位授予单位】:武汉理工大学
【学位级别】:硕士
【学位授予年份】:2012
【分类号】:D923.8
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 张靖;;英国冷却期制度的立法探究及启示[J];长沙理工大学学报(社会科学版);2011年03期
2 汪传才;;分时度假的消费者保护初探[J];法律科学.西北政法学院学报;2006年04期
3 尚晓玲;论在线交易中的消费者权益保护[J];湖北社会科学;2004年06期
4 乔新生;;冷却期制度的法律性质[J];法治论坛;2009年04期
5 余晓辉;;消费者反悔权浅论[J];法制与社会;2008年20期
6 张川;;浅析消费者反悔权[J];法制与社会;2008年34期
7 赵秋雁;;B2C电子商务中冷却期制度的国际借鉴[J];国际经济合作;2008年03期
8 董新凯,夏瑜;冷却期制度与消费者权益保护[J];河北法学;2005年05期
9 严欢欢;;冷却期制度研究[J];河南公安高等专科学校学报;2007年04期
10 王利明;合同法的目标与鼓励交易[J];法学研究;1996年03期
相关硕士学位论文 前7条
1 闫金;消费者反悔权法律制度研究[D];中国政法大学;2011年
2 何国萍;民法基本原则的冲突与协调[D];中国政法大学;2011年
3 张再喜;论我国消费者反悔权制度的完善[D];湖南师范大学;2011年
4 丁金环;论消费者后悔权[D];湖南师范大学;2011年
5 卢菁菁;冷却期法律制度研究[D];南京理工大学;2009年
6 姜旭;消费者反悔权研究[D];西南政法大学;2010年
7 徐世明;论无因解约权[D];西南政法大学;2010年
,本文编号:1833118
本文链接:https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/hetongqiyue/1833118.html