论标价错误网购合同之效力

发布时间：2019-05-25 04:12

【摘要】：随着近年来电子商务的迅速发展,各类网站购物平台标错价格的事件层出不穷,而法院在处理这类案件时,常常出现同案不同判的情形,判决结果也令双方当事人均不满意。究其原因,主要是此类案件中的较多争议点,我国现行立法没有明确规定,且理论与实务界也存在较多争议。因此,本文通过深入分析这类案件的主要争议问题,为之后处理此类网络交易“错价门”案例提供一些司法指导意见,同时也期望能为之后我国电子商务的立法提供一定的参考。本文主要分为五大部分:第一部分,问题的引出。通过大陆发生的卓越网“硬盘门118”案以及台湾地区的“UB MALL”案和“DELL”案的网购“错价门”案例,分析诉争双方的主张和法院判决内容,从而引出本文要探讨的问题,之后将这些问题与争议深入分析,得出自己的观点。第二部分,主要分析标价错误合同的成立问题。在分析网站商品信息是否构成要约时,需要从页面商品信息是否详细具体,网页上是否显示商品的实际库存量,以及网站经营者是否受其意思表示的约束三方面考量;而网站自动回复的订单确认信是否构成要约,则依其回复内容而定,当回复内容模棱两可时,需要做出有利于消费者的解释;当网站在用户注册协议中规定仅当经营者实际发货时,网购合同才成立,对此格式条款笔者认为是无效的。第三部分,主要分析已经成立的网购合同其撤销问题。实践中,经营者往往以重大误解请求撤销合同,也有主张显失公平的。只有当经营者主观上尽了善良管理人的注意义务,客观上标价错误构成“重大的”误解时,经营者才能依重大误解撤销合同;而标价错误成立显失公平时,须主观上存在消费者的“利用行为”,客观上双方权利义务严重失衡。第四部分,主要分析标价错误合同撤销后的信赖利益赔偿问题。当前我国《合同法》和《民法通则》都将无效和可撤销行为的法律后果统一规定为缔约过失责任,使得经营者仅在有过失的情形下才对消费者的信赖利益进行赔偿,且此时,消费者也因种种原因鲜有机会能求偿成功;而当经营者没有过失时,消费者即使存在损失也得不到赔偿。因此,笔者呼吁对电子商务进行立法,对经营者承担的责任明确规定,也让消费者的合理信赖能得到妥善赔偿。第五部分,结语与建议。
[Abstract]:With the rapid development of electronic commerce in recent years, all kinds of website shopping platform misprice events emerge in endlessly, and when the court deals with this kind of case, there are often different judgments in the same case, and the judgment results are not satisfactory to both parties. The main reason is that there are many controversial points in this kind of cases, the current legislation of our country is not clearly stipulated, and there are also many disputes in theory and practice. Therefore, through in-depth analysis of the main controversial issues in this kind of cases, this paper provides some judicial guidance for dealing with the "wrong price door" cases of this kind of online transactions in the future. At the same time, it is also expected to provide some reference for the legislation of electronic commerce in our country. This paper is divided into five parts: the first part, the introduction of the problem. Through the "hard disk door 118" case of Zhuoyue Network in the mainland and the "wrong price door" case of "UB MALL" and "DELL" in Taiwan, this paper analyzes the opinions of both sides of the lawsuit and the contents of the court judgment, thus leads to the problems to be discussed in this paper. After these issues and disputes in-depth analysis, come to their own point of view. The second part, mainly analyzes the establishment of the price error contract. When analyzing whether the website commodity information constitutes an offer, it is necessary to consider whether the page commodity information is detailed and specific, whether the actual inventory of the goods is displayed on the web page, and whether the website operator is bound by the expression of its intention. Whether the order confirmation letter automatically replied to the website constitutes an offer depends on the content of the reply, and when the content of the reply is ambiguous, it needs to be explained in favor of consumers. When the website stipulates in the user registration agreement that the online shopping contract is established only when the operator actually delivers the goods, the author thinks that this format clause is invalid. The third part mainly analyzes the cancellation of the online shopping contract that has been established. In practice, operators often request the cancellation of the contract with major misunderstandings, and some argue that it is obviously unfair. Only when the operator does the duty of care of the good manager subjectively and objectively constitutes a "major" misunderstanding, can the operator cancel the contract according to the major misunderstanding. When the wrong pricing is obviously unfair, there must be a subjective "utilization behavior" of consumers, and objectively, the rights and obligations of the two sides are seriously out of balance. The fourth part mainly analyzes the compensation of trust interest after the cancellation of bid error contract. At present, both the contract Law and the General principles of Civil Law in our country unify the legal consequences of invalid and revocable acts as liability for fault in contracting, so that operators can compensate consumers for their trusted interests only in the case of negligence, and at this time, Consumers also have little opportunity to claim success for a variety of reasons; And when the operator is not at fault, even if there is a loss, consumers will not be compensated. Therefore, the author calls for legislation on e-commerce, the responsibility of operators is clearly stipulated, so that consumers' reasonable trust can be properly compensated. The fifth part, the conclusion and the suggestion.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D920.5;D923.6

【相似文献】