消费者撤回权制度的反思与重构——基于法律经济学的分析

发布时间：2018-04-10 16:16

本文选题：消费者权益保护法 + 消费者撤回权　；参考：《法商研究》2017年03期

【摘要】：2014年开始施行的新《中华人民共和国消费者权益保护法》第25条关于消费者撤回权的规定固然会降低消费者的维权成本,但也会带来一些低效率的意外后果,如扩大消费者追求合作剩余最大化的时间范围、诱发消费者的道德风险、对消费者的冲动性购买行为形成激励,等等。这些低效率后果的产生并非是"对消费者应当予以特殊保护"这一制度目标本身存在问题,而是对远程购物中消费者权益保护的工具设计上出现了偏差,它对经营者采取了集体化的惩罚范式,剥夺了经营者的抗辩权,改变了交易行动中风险的"双方预防"原则。为避免这些低效率,应将消费者的撤回权规定由强制性规范改为任意性规范,要求消费者对不合理退货的行为担责,同时将举证责任配置给经营者承担以减轻消费者的证明成本,并进一步完善消费者行使撤回权的保障机制,以此来实现自治与强制的兼顾、成本与收益的平衡。
[Abstract]:Article 25 of the new Consumer Rights and interests Protection Law of the people's Republic of China, which came into effect in 2014, will not only reduce the cost of consumer rights, but also bring about some unintended and inefficient consequences.Such as expanding the time range for consumers to pursue the maximization of cooperative surplus, inducing the moral hazard of consumers, encouraging the impulsive purchase behavior of consumers, and so on.The result of these inefficiencies is not that there are problems in the system objective of "giving special protection to consumers", but that there is a deviation in the design of tools for protecting consumers' rights and interests in long-distance shopping.It adopts the collectivized punishment paradigm to the operator, deprives the operator of his right of defense, and changes the principle of "both sides' prevention" of the risk in the transaction action.In order to avoid these inefficiencies, consumers' right to withdraw should be changed from a mandatory norm to a arbitrariness norm, requiring consumers to be held accountable for unreasonable returns.At the same time, the burden of proof is allocated to the operator to reduce the cost of consumer proof, and to further improve the protection mechanism of consumers' exercise of the right of withdrawal, so as to achieve the balance between autonomy and compulsion and between cost and benefit.
【作者单位】：重庆大学法学院;
【基金】：司法部国家法治与法学理论研究项目(16SFB2039) 中国法学会部级法学研究课题[CLS(2016)D101] 重庆大学中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金项目(106112017CDJSK 08XK 02)
【分类号】：D923.8

【相似文献】