论消费者撤回权制度的完善

On the perfection of the system of the withdrawal right of the consumer

摘要:(摘要内容经过系统自动伪原创处理以避免复制,下载原文正常,内容请直接查看目录。)

花费者撤回权,是指花费者在必定特别的时限内,可以明智地思虑本身所订立的生意合同关于本身能否真的具有价值,并且可以无任何前提的消除该合同的权力。花费者撤回权轨制的设立使花费者无机会对本身的花费行动停止感性的再思虑,表现了抵消费者权益的倾斜性地掩护,该轨制相符古代立法的成长趋向,可以或许使法院和仲裁机构的裁判压力得以加重,使花费者们没有后顾之忧,勇于宁神年夜胆地停止花费运动。跟着社会经济的赓续成长,花费者撤回权轨制在很多的蓬勃国度都曾经树立而且日益完美了。我国在2014年3月15日公布了新修订的《花费者权益掩护法》,此次修订冲破了合同严守准绳,在订立合同的两边对商品信息所控制的情形不公正时,使合同两边当事人完成了真正意义上的位置对等,真实的贯彻了本质的合同自在准绳。然则,新修订的《花费者权益掩护法》中关于花费者撤回权的划定还不敷完美,仍存在如标准客体不周全、不予退换的商品界定不明白、起算刻日和发卖者的告诉责任不明白、退货费用的承当主体成绩、被退货商品的“无缺”尺度不详细等成绩。经由过程抵消费者撤回权轨制的沿革、相干实际研讨,以为花费者撤回权的立法动因总结为花费行动中存在的以下成绩:情形垄断、非感性行动、信息纰谬称。以上存在于花费者身上的三个重要成绩可以或许异常显著的在一些特别的生意业务类型或生意业务方法中表示出来,例如长途收集购物、电视购物或许上门倾销等发卖情势。为了避免花费者在这些新型花费方法当中涌现不克不及直不雅亲自检讨商品、在发卖人员上门压力之下购置商品和没法完整了懂得审查合赞成思等成绩的涌现,给花费者一段可以沉着思虑本身在此情形下所订立的合同能否值得订立的时光,花费者撤回权轨制就是应此请求而涌现的。从上述的三个成绩当中,我们可以作以下推论:第一,在该种情形下作出花费行动的主体是一个非感性的人,他受很多身分限制没法完整客不雅沉着的作出决议;第二,作出该花费行动的花费者是一个在生意合同中处于优势的行动人,绝对于运营者,他对商品信息控制不周全、对合同懂得不到位、乃至在订立合同时遭到压力;第三,花费者行使该项权力时撤回的是一个合同,这个合同外面看来相符情势公理,然则却常常没有做到本质的公理。以上这三点相互联系关系、相互感化彼此。经由过程以上几点可以看出在合同的本质公理、花费者主权实际和司法家长主义三个实际上可以或许充足论证花费者撤回权轨制。同时,经由过程对该轨制的本钱效益剖析也能够看出该轨制存在的公道性。方面,经由过程本钱效益剖析,可以或许看出为了使花费者可以或许做出更好的选择,我们应当在何种水平上抵消费者实施掩护办法;另外一方面,可以或许得出经由过程公道的轨制设计可以将轨制自己所带来的负面效应最小化的结论,同时,本文佐以抵消费者撤回权轨制的经济剖析,证实了花费者行使撤回权的本钱在必定水平上是可以很好的停止掌握的,其固然会发生必定的负面效应,然则这其实不足以影响到花费者撤回权轨制的存在和运用,并且跟着社会经济的成长,无因退货轨制在全球规模内被运用的愈来愈普遍,亦可正面反应出在花费者退货情形下发生的额定本钱是运营者可蒙受的。本文抵消费者撤回权的典范立法规停止了罗列剖析,德公民法典中早已树立了比拟完整的花费者撤回权轨制,美国也于上个世纪也树立了与花费者撤回权轨制绝对应的冷却期轨制,英国的花费者则可以经由过程行使合同撤消权,将本身其购置商品的意思表现予以撤回。这些蓬勃国度关于花费者撤回权轨制的立法经历关于完美我国花费者撤回权的司法轨制具有积极的启示感化。在我国花费者撤回权的实用进程中须要完美的详细成绩,则重要提出了以下几点意见:标准客体不周全、不予退换的商品界定不明白、起算刻日和发卖者的告诉责任不明白、退货费用的承当主体成绩、被退货商品的“无缺”尺度不详细等成绩。为了可以或许更好地处理花费者撤回权在现今社会生涯运用中涌现的各种成绩,本文关于若何完美《花费者权益掩护法》的划定提出了扩展客体规模、限制商品价值、限制运营者的告诉责任、明白权利行使方法、划定行使权力的司法后果、明白权利滥用的制止、明白运营者的举证义务等完美看法。

Abstract:

Consumers the right to withdraw, is refers to the consumers in the business contract must special within the time limit can be wise to consider itself concluded about whether he is really worth, and no preconditions to eliminate the power of the contract. Consumers to withdraw in rail system was set so that consumers have the opportunity to itself takes action to stop the perceptual re thinking, the performance of the credit consumer rights and interests of the cover of the tilt, the rail system consistent with ancient legislation growth trend, can perhaps make the magistrates courts and arbitrators pressure to increase, so that consumers do not have to worry about, Ning God the eve of the biliary bravely to stop spending movement. Follow the ceaseless development of economy and society and consumers to withdraw in rail system in many developed countries have been established and increasingly perfect. In China in 2014 March 15, announced the new revision of the "cost of Equity Protection Act" and the revision to break the contract and strict adherence to the principle, entered into contract on both sides to the commodity information control of unfair, contract both parties completed the real position of, the real implement the nature of the contract freedom principle. However, the newly revised "spend 'rights and interests protection law" on consumers to withdraw the delineation of right is not enough to improve and perfect, there are still such as the object of the standard is not comprehensive, not the returned goods is not clear, defined starting moment, and the seller told, don't understand, return cost bear the main achievement, was the return of goods of "missing" scale not detailed results. Through against consumers to withdraw the right track of the evolution, relevant theoretical research that consumers to withdraw legislative reasons summary takes action in the presence of the following results: monopoly situation, non perceptual actions, information PI paradox says. The existence of more than to spend the three important results can perhaps significant anomalies in some particular business type or business method expressed, such as toll collection shopping, TV shopping perhaps the door dumping sales situation. In order to avoid consumers in these new cost approach emerging means than intuitive personally review goods, sales personnel on-site pressure under the purchase of goods and can not complete the know the examination in favor of the emergence of thinking results, to spend a can be calm and thoughtful itself in this case concluded contract can is entered into the time, consumers to withdraw in rail system is the request and the emergence of. Axiom of understand in spending from the above three results, we can make the following inferences: first, in the situation to make the cost action subject is a non emotional person, he is influenced by a lot of restrictions on the identity of not complete customer indecent calm resolution; second, make the cost of action is a business contract in a dominant action, relative to the operator, he of commodity information control is not comprehensive, the contract is not in place, and at the conclusion of the contract under pressure; the third, consumers to exercise the power to withdraw is a contract, the contract outwardly appear to conform to the situation, but often do not essential axioms. These three interrelated and mutually influence each other. Through the above process can be seen in the nature of contract axiom, consumer sovereignty and judicial paternalism three might in fact sufficient proof consumers right of withdrawal system. At the same time, through the cost benefit analysis process of the system can also be seen that the existence of the justice system. Through the process analysis, cost benefit, can be seen in order to make the consumers can make better choices, we should arrive at what level on the implementation of consumer protection measures; on the other hand, can be obtained through the system design process can be reasonable system of minimizing the negative effects brought by their own conclusions, at the same time. This paper analyzes the consumer with right of withdrawal system of economy, that consumers to exercise the right of withdrawal of capital in a certain extent can be very good to stop the master, it will have a negative effect on the existence and use of will, but this is not enough to affect consumers' right of withdrawal system, and along with the social economy growth, no reason to return the system is used on a global scale have become more common, but also a positive reaction occurred in the return to spend the extra cost case is shipped The operator can suffer. This paper against consumers withdraw right model legislation to stop the list analysis, German civil code has set a relatively complete consumers to withdraw in rail system, the United States in the last century also set a and consumers to withdraw in rail of the absolute cooling off period rail system and British consumers can through the exercise of contract cancellation rights, will own the purchase meaning of the commodity to be withdrawn. These developed countries about the consumer right of withdrawal system of legislative experience about the perfect legal system in China Consumers' right of withdrawal has positive enlightenment effect. In our country consumer withdrawn in the application process of the need to perfect the detailed results, important is put forward following suggestions: standard object is not comprehensive, not the returned goods is not clear, defined starting moment, and the seller told, don't understand, return cost bear the main achievement, was the return of goods "missing" scale not detailed results. In order to better solution to a consumer right of withdrawal emerge in the use of modern social life of the various grades may, this paper on how to perfect the consumer rights and interests protection law "to delineate the proposed extended object size, limit the commodity value, and the restriction of operators told responsibility, Bai Ming right exercise method, designated to exercise the power of judicial consequences, understand the abuse of rights to stop, that operators of proof obligations such as perfect view.

目录:

摘要6-8
Abstract8-10
第一章 绪论13-16
    1.1 研究现状13-14
    1.2 研究目的、意义14
    1.3 研究范围、方法14-16
第二章 消费者撤回权16-29
    2.1 消费者撤回权16-18
        2.1.1 消费者撤回权的概念16-17
        2.1.2 消费者撤回权的特征17-18
    2.2 消费者撤回权的正当性分析18-29
        2.2.1 消费者撤回权的立法动因18-23
            2.2.1.1 意思不自由18-20
            2.2.1.2 信息不对称20
            2.2.1.3 非理性行为20-23
        2.2.2 消费者撤回权的理论基础23-27
            2.2.2.1 合同的实质正义理论23
            2.2.2.2 消费者主权理论23-25
            2.2.2.3 法律家长主义25-27
        2.2.3 消费者撤回权的经济分析27-29
第三章 消费者撤回权的立法例比较29-34
    3.1 国外消费者撤回权制度的比较考察29-31
        3.1.1 德国的撤回权制度29-30
        3.1.2 美国的冷却期制度30
        3.1.3 英国的合同取消权制度30-31
    3.2 我国相关制度的考察分析31-34
        3.2.1 我国现行相关制度的历史发展31-32
        3.2.2 我国现行相关制度的内容评价32-34
第四章 我国消费者撤回权制度的完善34-38
    4.1 扩大客体范围34
    4.2 商品价值限制34
    4.3 经营者的告知义务34-35
    4.4 消费者撤回权的行使方式35
    4.5 行使撤回权的法律效果35-36
    4.6 权利滥用的禁止36
    4.7 经营者的举证责任36-38
第五章 结语38-39
参考文献39-42
致谢42