论多倍赔偿的基数确定——最高人民法院第17号指导案例研究

发布时间：2018-04-02 23:17

本文选题：指导案例　切入点：多倍赔偿　出处：《南京大学学报(哲学·人文科学·社会科学)》2015年01期

【摘要】：在我国,经营者在汽车销售中对其销售前曾经维修的信息有欺诈行为的,消费者可否根据原《消费者权益保护法》第49条的规定,获得汽车价款加倍的赔偿,司法实践中,各地法院有着不同的裁判立场。尽管我国《消法》所规定的多倍赔偿制度一直被称为惩罚性赔偿制度,但其制定背景、制度目标、观念基础等均与美国的惩罚性赔偿制度有着明显的区别。基于与美国BMW of North America v.Gore案的比较分析,我国的多倍赔偿制度与美国惩罚性赔偿制度在功能定位、数额计算等方面也有不同,以"商品价款"为多倍赔偿的计算基数正是这些区别的具体体现。因此,最高人民法院第17号指导案例所确立的裁判结论及其规则应当予以肯定。在此类经营者欺诈销售的案件中,法院应坚持指导案例的立场,尊重立法者的政策选择,以商品价款为多倍赔偿的基数,并在欺诈构成、新车判断等方面予以细化。
[Abstract]:In our country, if an operator fraudulently acts against the information he has maintained before the sale of an automobile, can the consumer obtain double compensation for the car price in accordance with the provisions of Article 49 of the original Consumer Rights and interests Protection Law, in judicial practice,Courts around the country have different judgment positions.Although the system of multiple times compensation stipulated in our country's "Consumer Law" has always been called the punitive damages system, its background, objectives and conceptual basis are obviously different from those of the United States.Based on the comparative analysis of the case of BMW of North America v.Gore in the United States, the system of multiple times damages in China is different from the system of punitive damages of the United States in the aspects of function orientation, amount calculation and so on.To "commodity price" for multiple compensation calculation base is the concrete embodiment of these differences.Therefore, the judgment conclusion and its rules established by the Supreme people's Court's guidance case No. 17 should be affirmed.In such cases, the court should adhere to the position of guiding the case, respect the policy choice of the legislator, take the commodity price as the basis of multiple compensation, and refine the fraud composition, new car judgment and so on.
【作者单位】：南京大学法学院;
【基金】：教育部人文社会科学研究基金资助项目(10YJA820055) 教育部新世纪优秀人才支持计划(NECT-11-0226)
【分类号】：D922.294

【参考文献】