發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-03-28 12:06

  本文選題：產(chǎn)品自身?yè)p害　切入點(diǎn)：純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失　出處：《武漢大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：產(chǎn)品自身?yè)p害,是指有瑕疵的產(chǎn)品在交付或移轉(zhuǎn)所有權(quán)之后,潛伏于產(chǎn)品某個(gè)部位的瑕疵不幸實(shí)現(xiàn),而導(dǎo)致產(chǎn)品不堪使用、毀損或者滅失的情形。關(guān)于產(chǎn)品自身?yè)p害應(yīng)如何救濟(jì),無(wú)論在域外法國(guó)家,還是在我國(guó)理論和司法實(shí)踐中,都是一個(gè)頗具爭(zhēng)議的法律問(wèn)題。對(duì)于產(chǎn)品自身?yè)p害,在域外法國(guó)家,原則上不允許通過(guò)侵權(quán)法進(jìn)行救濟(jì),而將其交由合同法調(diào)整,確立了"侵權(quán)法排除規(guī)則+合同法救濟(jì)"的一般模式。但受制于合同相對(duì)性和訴訟時(shí)效等因素,完全交由合同法救濟(jì)可能不利于消費(fèi)者(受害人)保護(hù)。針對(duì)于此,有些國(guó)家嘗試侵權(quán)法的例外保護(hù),有些國(guó)家則通過(guò)突破合同相對(duì)性來(lái)完善合同法救濟(jì)。我國(guó)理論界大致有三種觀點(diǎn):合同法救濟(jì)模式、侵權(quán)法救濟(jì)模式和消費(fèi)者保護(hù)法救濟(jì)模式。合同法救濟(jì)模式主要著眼于合同法與侵權(quán)法的體系協(xié)調(diào)性,侵權(quán)法救濟(jì)模式和消費(fèi)者保護(hù)法救濟(jì)模式則祭出消費(fèi)者(受害人)保護(hù)的"大旗",重點(diǎn)著眼于對(duì)受害人提供實(shí)質(zhì)上的救濟(jì)。在技術(shù)性規(guī)則上,如合同相對(duì)性、請(qǐng)求權(quán)競(jìng)合和訴訟時(shí)效,三種模式的認(rèn)識(shí)亦有差異。在司法裁判中,理論界的三種模式也都各有其"擁躉",其中侵權(quán)法救濟(jì)模式在實(shí)務(wù)中占據(jù)主導(dǎo)地位,尤其在《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》施行后。比較法上,合同相對(duì)性和訴訟時(shí)效等技術(shù)性規(guī)則因素,是域外法國(guó)家繞過(guò)合同法而借道侵權(quán)法救濟(jì)產(chǎn)品自身?yè)p害的主要原因。而在我國(guó),訴訟時(shí)效和請(qǐng)求權(quán)競(jìng)合并非合同法救濟(jì)模式適用的障礙,但合同相對(duì)性確是其短板,而相較之下,侵權(quán)法救濟(jì)模式和消費(fèi)者保護(hù)法救濟(jì)模式在解決合同相對(duì)性問(wèn)題上具有優(yōu)勢(shì)。然而,后兩種模式所解決的問(wèn)題不比產(chǎn)生的問(wèn)題多,其或在理論上存在諸多缺陷,或與現(xiàn)行制度難以兼容。司法裁判中,雖然侵權(quán)法救濟(jì)的觀點(diǎn)占主導(dǎo)地位,消費(fèi)者保護(hù)法救濟(jì)的觀點(diǎn)亦不乏支持者,但其裁判理由存在各種謬誤,法律適用錯(cuò)誤,不足以成為證明其合理性的依據(jù)。我國(guó)應(yīng)恪守合同法救濟(jì)模式,產(chǎn)品自身?yè)p害是履行利益的損失,實(shí)質(zhì)是合同瑕疵履行的問(wèn)題,應(yīng)由合同法規(guī)范。合同相對(duì)性問(wèn)題可通過(guò)生產(chǎn)者擔(dān)保規(guī)則的構(gòu)建得到解決,無(wú)需借道侵權(quán)法或消費(fèi)者保護(hù)法進(jìn)行突破。合同法救濟(jì)模式能夠在實(shí)現(xiàn)合同法與侵權(quán)法體系協(xié)調(diào)性的同時(shí),兼顧對(duì)消費(fèi)者(受害人)的保護(hù)。
[Abstract]:The damage of the product itself means that the defective product, after delivery or transfer of ownership, is unfortunately realized in a certain part of the product, resulting in the product being unusable. How to remedy the damage caused by the product itself is a controversial legal issue both in the countries of extraterritorial law and in the theory and judicial practice of our country. For the damage of the product itself, in the country of extraterritorial law, In principle, it is not allowed to carry out relief through tort law, but to be adjusted by contract law, which establishes the general mode of "remedy of tort law excluding rules of contract", but is subject to the factors such as the relativity of contract and the limitation of action, etc. Giving full relief to contract law may be detrimental to consumer (victim) protection. In view of this, some countries try to provide exceptional protection under tort law. Some countries improve the remedy of contract law by breaking through the relativity of contract. The relief mode of tort law and the relief mode of consumer protection law are mainly focused on the coordination of the system of contract law and tort law. The relief mode of tort law and the relief mode of consumer protection law sacrifice the "banner" of consumer (victim) protection, with emphasis on providing substantive relief to the victim... in terms of technical rules, such as the relativity of contract, There are also differences in the understanding of the three modes of concurrence of claims and limitation of action. In the judicial adjudication, each of the three modes of theory has its own "supporters", among which the relief mode of tort law occupies a dominant position in practice. Especially after the implementation of the Tort liability Law. In comparative law, technical rules such as relativity of contract and limitation of action are the main reasons for extraterritorial French to circumvent the contract law and remedy the damage of their own products by way of tort law. The limitation of action and the competing right of claim are not the obstacles to the application of the relief mode of contract law, but the relativity of contract is its short board. The relief mode of tort law and the relief mode of consumer protection law have advantages in solving the problem of relativity of contract. However, the problems solved by the latter two models are not more than those produced, and there are many defects in theory. Or it is difficult to be compatible with the current system. In judicial adjudication, although the viewpoint of relief of tort law is dominant and the viewpoint of consumer protection law is not without supporters, there are various fallacies and errors in the application of the law. Our country should abide by the relief mode of contract law, the damage of the product itself is the loss of the benefit of performance, and the essence is the problem of the performance of the contract defect. It should be regulated by contract law. The problem of relativity of contract can be solved through the construction of producer guarantee rules. There is no need to break through the tort law or consumer protection law. The relief mode of contract law can realize the harmony between contract law and tort law system, and at the same time, the protection of consumers (victims) can be taken into account.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：武漢大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923;D922.294

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 邱國(guó)威;;論產(chǎn)品自身?yè)p害——兼論產(chǎn)品責(zé)任中的純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失[J];時(shí)代法學(xué);2016年05期

2 李磊;;我國(guó)臺(tái)灣地區(qū)重疊合并之訴芻議[J];福建法學(xué);2016年01期

3 張家勇;;論合同保護(hù)第三人的路徑選擇[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2016年01期

4 郗偉明;;論合同保護(hù)義務(wù)的應(yīng)然范圍[J];清華法學(xué);2015年06期

5 金印;;論作為絕對(duì)權(quán)侵害的產(chǎn)品自損——兼論“物質(zhì)同一說(shuō)”的能與不能[J];政治與法律;2015年09期

6 葉名怡;;違約與侵權(quán)競(jìng)合實(shí)益之反思[J];法學(xué)家;2015年03期

7 李永軍;;“產(chǎn)品自損”的侵權(quán)法救濟(jì)置疑[J];中國(guó)政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2015年03期

8 馬一德;;論消費(fèi)領(lǐng)域產(chǎn)品自損的民事責(zé)任[J];法商研究;2014年06期

9 董春華;;產(chǎn)品自身?yè)p害賠償研究——兼評(píng)《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第41條[J];河北法學(xué);2014年11期

10 邱星美;;客觀的預(yù)備的訴之合并——一個(gè)立法需要填寫的空白[J];法學(xué)雜志;2014年02期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 任明月;論缺陷產(chǎn)品自身?yè)p害的救濟(jì)[D];南京師范大學(xué);2016年

2 張寅;產(chǎn)品自身?yè)p害侵權(quán)責(zé)任的比較研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2011年

3 莫燕子;論產(chǎn)品責(zé)任中的純經(jīng)濟(jì)損失[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2011年

，

本文編號(hào)：1676255