我国消费者反悔权制度的立法完善研究

发布时间：2018-05-11 05:12

本文选题：消费者权益 + 反悔权制度　；参考：《重庆大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：我国《消费者权益保护法》实施20多年以来,无论是对消费者合法权益的保护,还是对经营者市场行为的规范,都起到了不可磨灭的作用。然而随着社会的不断发展,科技的日新月异,相较于经营者的雄厚实力,消费者的弱者地位更加突出。为了平衡两者之间的实力差距,保护消费者的合法权益,法律,尤其是以追求实质公平为目的的经济法更应当制定对消费者进行倾斜保护的制度。反悔权制度应运而生,通过赋予消费者在达成消费合同并且履行合同之后的一段时间内,无须向经营者说明任何理由即可退货且不必承担违约责任的权利,从而使买卖双方之前订立的合同恢复到最初状态。反悔权制度的正当性在于它体现了对消费者的倾斜保护、平衡经营者与消费者之间的利益和追求实质公平的立法理念,是市场经济发展到一定阶段的必然要求和必然选择。国外发达国家,例如英国、美国、德国、日本等国家均在立法中详细规定了反悔权制度,并且于实践中得到了很好的贯彻执行。我国也顺应国际趋势,修订了《消费者权益保护法》,在新修订的法律中增加了消费者反悔权这一新型权利,对于消费者的权益保护有着积极而不可替代的作用。然而新消法第二十五条对消费者反悔权的规定较为笼统,对于一些细节问题,例如消费者滥用反悔权的规制、消费纠纷中买卖双方的举证责任等在新的条文中都没有具体规定,因此有待进一步细化新消法中消费者反悔权制度的具体实施方式。笔者通过考察英美德日这四个国家的消费者反悔权制度,结合本国消费领域的实际情况,指出本次立法的不足之处并提出一些完善建议,以期使消费者的权益得到更好的保障,同时平衡市场中经营者与消费者之间的利益。本文开篇对消费者反悔权制度做了理论研究。首先,界定了反悔权的概念,考察消费者反悔权与其他相关权利的关系,通过将反悔权与可撤销权、合同解除权、无因退换权和三包规定中的退货权作比较,厘清它们之间的区别与联系,以便更好的把握反悔权的概念;其次,对消费者反悔权制度的内涵加以探析,明确反悔权制度的概念、特征;再次,简要介绍了反悔权制度的基本内容;最后,分析了我国消费者反悔权制度的立法理念。然后指出了我国消费者反悔权制度立法的不足之处,包括适用范围不够合理、期间规定有待完善、法律后果规定不清、权利滥用规制缺失以及举证责任未作规定;接下来本文介绍了国外反悔权制度的基本内容。主要介绍了英国、美国、德国以及日本这四个国家有关反悔权制度方面的规定;文末部分本文提出了完善我国消费者反悔权制度的一些立法建议。具体包括明确反悔权的适用范围、细化反悔权的期间规定、明确反悔权行使的法律后果、规制反悔权的滥用行为和规定反悔权的举证责任五个方面。
[Abstract]:Since the implementation of the Consumer Rights and interests Protection Law in China for more than 20 years, it has played an indelible role both in the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of consumers and in the regulation of the market behavior of operators. However, with the continuous development of society and the rapid development of science and technology, compared with the strong strength of the operators, the weak position of consumers is more prominent. In order to balance the gap of strength between the two and protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, the law, especially the economic law aiming at pursuing substantial fairness, should formulate a system of preferential protection for consumers. By giving consumers the right to return the goods and not to be liable for breach of contract for a period of time after the conclusion of the consumer contract and the performance of the contract, the system of the right of retrogression arises without giving the operator any reason for returning the goods. So that the buyer and seller previously entered into the contract to the original state. The legitimacy of the system is that it embodies the protection of consumers, balances the interests between operators and consumers and pursues the legislative concept of substantive fairness, which is the inevitable requirement and inevitable choice for the development of market economy to a certain stage. Foreign developed countries, such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, Japan and other countries in the legislation of detailed provisions of the right to reverse the system, and in practice has been well implemented. In line with the international trend, China has amended the Consumer Rights and interests Protection Act, adding the new right of consumers' right of retrogression to the newly revised law, which plays an active and irreplaceable role in the protection of consumers' rights and interests. However, the provisions of Article 25 of the New Consumer Law on consumers' right of estoppel are more general. For some details, such as the regulation of consumers' abuse of the right of estoppel, the burden of proof between the buyer and the seller in the consumer dispute, etc., are not specified in the new articles. Therefore, it is necessary to further refine the specific implementation of the system of consumer estoppel in the new law. By examining the system of consumers' reneging right in Britain, Germany and Japan, combined with the actual situation in the field of domestic consumption, the author points out the shortcomings of this legislation and puts forward some perfect suggestions in order to better protect the rights and interests of consumers. At the same time, balance the interests between operators and consumers in the market. At the beginning of this paper, the author makes a theoretical study on the system of consumers' reneging right. First of all, it defines the concept of the right of retrogression, examines the relationship between the right of consumers' right of retrogression and other relevant rights, and compares the right of retrogression with the right of revocability, the right of rescission of contract, the right of no-cause exchange and the right of return in the three guarantees. Clarify their differences and links, in order to better grasp the concept of the right to reverse; secondly, to explore the connotation of the consumer right to reverse the system, clear the concept of the system, characteristics; again, This paper briefly introduces the basic contents of the system, and finally, analyzes the legislative idea of the system of consumer's right of abrogation. Then the author points out the shortcomings of the legislation of the consumer's right of abrogation in our country, including the scope of application is not reasonable, the provisions of the period need to be perfected, the legal consequences are not clear, the regulation of abuse of rights is lacking and the burden of proof is not stipulated. Then this paper introduces the basic contents of the foreign system of estoppel. This paper mainly introduces the provisions of the system of abrogation in Britain, America, Germany and Japan. At the end of this paper, the author puts forward some legislative suggestions to perfect the system of consumer's right of estoppel in our country. It includes the following five aspects: clarifying the scope of application of the right of estoppel, detailing the provisions of the period of the right of estoppel, clarifying the legal consequences of the exercise of the right of estoppel, regulating the abuse of the right of estoppel and stipulating the burden of proof of the right of estoppel.
【学位授予单位】：重庆大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.8

【相似文献】