消费者合同三题:知假买假、惩罚性赔偿与合同终了

发布时间：2018-02-11 12:16

本文关键词： 消费者合同知假买假惩罚性赔偿合同终了　出处：《法律适用》2015年10期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】："知假买假"是否受法律保护,不可一概而论,必须依相关法律规范具体解释。《食品安全法》第148条第2款不以"欺诈行为"为惩罚性赔偿的构成要件,知假买假受保护没有问题;《消费者权益保护法》第55条第1款则不同,对于惩罚性赔偿明确要求经营者具有"欺诈行为",在该法律及有关司法解释等没有明确规定此处的"欺诈行为"不以行为人具有故意及相对人因此陷于错误为要件时,对其理解适用应严格遵循最高人民法院有关司法解释的规定,不应随便突破。相应地,在《消费者权益保护法》下,"知假买假"不应受到保护。行政规章中对于"欺诈行为"的界定,与司法解释存在不一致场合,应以司法解释为准。惩罚性赔偿在大陆法系国家和地区往往不被承认,我国法院作出的裁判文书如果有支持惩罚性赔偿的内容,且涉及境外执行的,应注意可能存在的制度差异带来的障碍。惩罚性赔偿是在填补性赔偿之外的一笔额外金钱给付,是纯粹的以惩罚为目的的特别法定责任,不以权利人实际遭受损害为要件,具有独立性,可以与缔约过失责任(在合同被撤销场合)或者违约责任(在合同被解除场合)并用。欺诈行为除了发生在缔约过程中,还可以发生在合同履行过程中,后者具有特殊性,应引起重视。
[Abstract]:Whether "knowing and buying fake" is protected by law cannot be generalized and must be interpreted in accordance with relevant legal norms. Section 148 (2) of the Food Safety Law does not take "fraud" as the constituent element of punitive damages. There is no problem with knowing that fake buying is protected; unlike section 55, paragraph 1, of the Consumer Rights and interests Protection Act, When punitive damages explicitly require the operator to have "fraud", if the law and the relevant judicial interpretation do not explicitly stipulate that the "fraud" in this case does not take the intentional behavior of the perpetrator and the error of the relative party as the elements, Its understanding and application should strictly abide by the provisions of the Supreme people's Court on judicial interpretation, and should not be arbitrarily broken through. Under the Law on Protection of Consumer Rights and interests, "knowing and buying fake" should not be protected. The definition of "fraud" in administrative regulations is inconsistent with the judicial interpretation. The judicial interpretation should prevail. Punitive damages are often not recognized in the countries and regions of the continental law system. If the judicial documents made by our courts have the contents supporting punitive damages and involve enforcement outside the country, Attention should be paid to the obstacles posed by possible institutional differences. Punitive damages are an additional pecuniary payment in addition to the compensatory damages, are special statutory obligations for purely punitive purposes, and do not take the actual damage suffered by the right holder as an element, Independent and can be used in conjunction with liability for negligence in contracting (on the occasion of rescission of contract) or liability for breach of contract (in case of rescission of contract). Fraud may occur in the course of the performance of the contract, in addition to occurring in the course of the conclusion of the contract, The latter has particularity, should arouse attention.
【作者单位】：清华大学法学院;
【分类号】：D922.16;D923.8

【相似文献】