消费者后悔权行使问题研究

发布时间：2018-06-24 20:29

本文选题：消费者 + 后悔权　；参考：《大连海事大学》2016年硕士论文

【摘要】：在新《消费者权益保护法》第25条中后悔权内容的行使问题上必须首先理解后悔权的定义与性质,后悔权形成与发展背景以及其权利的特征等相关概念的定义,厘清关于可退货商品的范围,明确"退货"、"完好性"、"举证责任"、"七日起算时间"等词语在实践中适用时的理解和进一步的法律解释适用,在后悔权行使的运行层面中涉及的一些有关于"商家不适用条款"的性质与法律效果等相关对策的细化,补充和研究进行合法合理的分析。通过将后悔权与相关制度进行对比,突出后悔权的独特性和新颖性以及在实践操作中有关行使后悔权需要注意的问题,从而充分利用起新消法中有关七天无理由退货的亮点规定,使消费者权益保护落入实质。关于行使后悔权中的举证责任分配的解释论证过程中,采取比较法的方法,参考美国和德国立法方面对电子商务中网络购物的相关论据为举证责任分配的论点提供进一步的佐证和参考,主张电子商务交易中的不同主体承担不同的举证责任内容,以卖方与买方为中心,同时也加入了快递公司与第三方交易平台的相关连带责任,使内容得到合理分配和细化。而之所以引入比较法是希望通过其他国家在此法域方面的回答及表述为我国的电商发展提供一定程度的参考价值。此外笔者集聚了后悔权的相关问题,其中包括对于后悔权行使中的相关费用承担,切实关系到消费者经济利益,将其分类为发货费用的负担,运费险,手续费三个方面进行分别论证。同时针对手续费问题,笔者采用一分为二的观点进行论证,主张在某些特定情况下收取适当的手续费,在退还价款阶段进行扣除,前提是必须与消费者进行合理协商,尽到告知义务。此外也论证了后悔权行使的起算时间问题,详细论证了后悔权行使的起始时间计算,防止消费者因时效期满而无法正常行使后悔权。以及有关后悔权诉讼中需要注意的一些问题。并提出了实践中部分消费者的滥用权利的行为,造成后悔权的恶意行使,也违反了民法中的禁止权利滥用的原则,市场应对这部分群体进行引导和规制。新《消费者权益保护法》第25条内容的出台以及2016年2月6日国家工商总局发布的《网络购买商品七日无理由退货指引》(征求意见稿),对后悔权行使内容的解释法越来越详尽。笔者也提出了对后悔权立法相关的意见和建议,包括明确后悔权行使的适用范围,制定商品完好性标准,统一后悔权争议的处理规则,建立远程交易个人诚信体系。相信随着立法的完善和实践中的经验总结,以及我国立法中与时俱进的精神的融合,后悔权制度将在以后的电子交易中发挥重要的作用。
[Abstract]:In Article 25 of the new Law on Protection of Consumer Rights and interests, we must first understand the definition and nature of the right of regret, the background of the formation and development of the right of regret, the characteristics of the right of regret, and so on, on the issue of the exercise of the content of the right of regret. To clarify the scope of returnable goods and to clarify the understanding and further legal interpretation of the terms "return", "completeness", "burden of proof" and "7-day counting time" in practice. In the operational level of the exercise of the right of regret, there are some related countermeasures about the nature and legal effect of the "merchant non-applicable clause", which are detailed, supplemented and studied to carry out legal and reasonable analysis. By comparing the right of regret with the relevant systems, it highlights the uniqueness and novelty of the right of regret and the problems concerning the exercise of the right of regret in practice. Thus, it makes full use of the bright spot provisions of the new law on seven days' unjustified return, so that the protection of consumers' rights and interests falls into essence. In the process of explaining the distribution of the burden of proof in the exercise of the right of regret, a comparative method is adopted. Referring to the relevant arguments of the United States and Germany on online shopping in electronic commerce, this paper provides further evidence and reference for the argument of burden of proof, and advocates that different subjects in e-commerce transactions bear different burden of proof. Taking the seller and buyer as the center, and adding the joint and several liability of the express company and the third party trading platform, the content can be reasonably distributed and refined. The reason for the introduction of comparative law is to provide a certain degree of reference value for the development of e-commerce in China through the answers and expressions of other countries in this jurisdiction. In addition, the author focuses on the issues related to the right of regret, including the bearing of related expenses in the exercise of the right of regret, which has a real bearing on the economic interests of consumers, and classifies it as the burden of shipping costs, freight risks, Three aspects of the handling fee are demonstrated separately. At the same time, in view of the problem of handling fees, the author uses the viewpoint of split into two to argue that the appropriate handling fees should be collected under certain specific circumstances and deducted at the stage of refund of the price, provided that reasonable consultation with consumers is necessary. Fulfill the obligation to inform. In addition, the beginning time of the exercise of the right of regret is also demonstrated, and the calculation of the starting time of the exercise of the right of regret is demonstrated in detail, so as to prevent consumers from exercising the right of regret normally due to the expiration of the limitation period. And some problems that need to be paid attention to in the litigation of the right of regret. It also puts forward the behavior of abuse of rights of some consumers in practice, which results in the malicious exercise of the right of regret and violates the principle of prohibiting abuse of rights in the civil law. The market should guide and regulate this part of the group. With the introduction of Article 25 of the new Law on Protection of Consumer Rights and the publication of the guidelines for the unjustified return of goods purchased on the Internet by the State Administration of Industry and Commerce on February 6, 2016 (draft for soliciting opinions), the law on the interpretation of the content of the exercise of the right of regret is becoming more and more detailed. The author also puts forward some opinions and suggestions on the legislation of the right of regret, including clarifying the scope of application of the exercise of the right of regret, formulating the standards of commodity integrity, unifying the rules of handling disputes over the right of regret, and establishing a system of personal integrity in remote trading. It is believed that with the perfection of legislation, the summing up of experience in practice and the fusion of the spirit of advancing with the times in the legislation of our country, the system of the right of regret will play an important role in the future electronic transaction.
【学位授予单位】：大连海事大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D923.8

【相似文献】