本文選題：網(wǎng)絡(luò)團(tuán)購(gòu)　切入點(diǎn)：團(tuán)購(gòu)平臺(tái)　出處：《南京師范大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：網(wǎng)絡(luò)團(tuán)購(gòu)作為新型的線上交易模式影響深遠(yuǎn),因第三方團(tuán)購(gòu)平臺(tái)的加入,此種交易模式呈現(xiàn)出有別于傳統(tǒng)商品交易的獨(dú)特之處,現(xiàn)實(shí)生活中因之產(chǎn)生的違約糾紛更是屢見不鮮。一方面,創(chuàng)新的團(tuán)購(gòu)模式致使當(dāng)事人間法律關(guān)系復(fù)雜多變;另一方面,團(tuán)購(gòu)平臺(tái)的參與又使得違約責(zé)任的歸屬難以確定。認(rèn)清網(wǎng)絡(luò)團(tuán)購(gòu)中的違約問題,明確第三方團(tuán)購(gòu)平臺(tái)的法律地位成為完善其違約責(zé)任制度的關(guān)鍵。網(wǎng)絡(luò)團(tuán)購(gòu)中的合同內(nèi)容一般由團(tuán)購(gòu)平臺(tái)單方擬定,消費(fèi)者在喪失主動(dòng)性的情況下只能選擇被動(dòng)接受,這與傳統(tǒng)合同的形成有著很大的區(qū)別。不同于普通的網(wǎng)上購(gòu)物,網(wǎng)絡(luò)團(tuán)購(gòu)以參與人數(shù)作為集中議價(jià)的資本,必須集合一定數(shù)量的消費(fèi)者才能正式生效,而買方則必須先履行付款義務(wù),在獲得支付憑證后才能進(jìn)行線下消費(fèi)。在特有的020經(jīng)營(yíng)模式下,團(tuán)購(gòu)與非團(tuán)購(gòu)的消費(fèi)待遇存在明顯的差異;同時(shí)由于合同的訂立過于依賴網(wǎng)絡(luò)虛擬數(shù)據(jù),所引發(fā)的信息不對(duì)稱也成為了網(wǎng)絡(luò)團(tuán)購(gòu)違約的重要成因。文章從違約事實(shí)和免責(zé)事由兩方面出發(fā)對(duì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)團(tuán)購(gòu)違約責(zé)任的構(gòu)成進(jìn)行了闡述,包括引發(fā)網(wǎng)絡(luò)團(tuán)購(gòu)違約的現(xiàn)實(shí)問題以及網(wǎng)絡(luò)技術(shù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)免責(zé)、消費(fèi)者冷卻期等特殊免責(zé)事由。由于團(tuán)購(gòu)平臺(tái)占據(jù)了交易的先機(jī)和優(yōu)勢(shì),合同中的免責(zé)條款應(yīng)當(dāng)選擇不利于平臺(tái)方的解釋。為進(jìn)一步推進(jìn)網(wǎng)絡(luò)團(tuán)購(gòu)違約責(zé)任制度發(fā)展,文章提出以“代理人說”為基礎(chǔ)重塑團(tuán)購(gòu)平臺(tái)的法律地位,將之認(rèn)定為商家的直接代理人,明確其法定義務(wù)。通過消費(fèi)者、團(tuán)購(gòu)平臺(tái)和實(shí)體商家的三方視角探討了違約責(zé)任制度的具體適用,確保在不同違約形態(tài)下責(zé)任均能得到切實(shí)承擔(dān)。
[Abstract]:As a new type of online trading model, the online group purchase has a profound influence. Because of the addition of the third party group purchase platform, this kind of trading mode is different from the traditional commodity trading. On the one hand, the innovative group purchase mode makes the legal relationship between the parties complex and changeable; on the other hand, The participation of group-buying platform makes it difficult to determine the attribution of breach of contract. Defining the legal status of the third-party group-buying platform has become the key to improve its liability system for breach of contract. The contract content in the online group-buying platform is generally drawn up unilaterally by the group-buying platform, and consumers can only passively accept it when they lose their initiative. This is quite different from the formation of traditional contracts. Unlike ordinary online shopping, online group buying takes the number of participants as the capital for concentrated bargaining, and must pool a certain number of consumers to officially take effect. On the other hand, the buyer must perform the obligation of payment first, and only after obtaining payment certificate can he consume offline. Under the special 020 mode of operation, there are obvious differences between the treatment of group purchase and non-group purchase. At the same time, because the conclusion of the contract is too dependent on the virtual data of the network, The information asymmetry caused by it has also become an important cause of online group purchase breach of contract. This paper expounds the constitution of breach of contract liability of network group purchase from the two aspects of breach of contract fact and exemption. Including the actual problems that lead to breach of contract of online group purchase, network technology risk exemption, consumer cooling-off period and other special reasons. Because the group purchase platform has occupied the preemptive opportunity and advantage of transaction, In order to further promote the development of online group purchase breach liability system, the article proposes to remold the legal status of group purchase platform on the basis of "agent theory". It is recognized as the direct agent of the merchant, and its legal obligation is clarified. Through the tripartite perspective of consumers, group buying platform and entity merchants, the author discusses the concrete application of the liability system of breach of contract. To ensure that liability can be effectively assumed in different forms of breach of contract.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 楊立新;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易法律關(guān)系構(gòu)造[J];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué);2016年02期

2 楊立新;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺(tái)提供者為消費(fèi)者損害承擔(dān)賠償責(zé)任的法理基礎(chǔ)[J];法學(xué);2016年01期

3 楊立新;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺(tái)提供服務(wù)的損害賠償責(zé)任及規(guī)則[J];法學(xué)論壇;2016年01期

4 楊立新;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺(tái)提供者民法地位之展開[J];山東大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2016年01期

5 郝歆;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)購(gòu)物中的信息不對(duì)稱以及對(duì)策初探[J];時(shí)代金融;2015年05期

6 屈志強(qiáng);;電子商務(wù)交易活動(dòng)中商品信息不對(duì)稱的問題思考[J];中國(guó)商貿(mào);2015年03期

7 楊立新;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)提供者的附條件不真正連帶責(zé)任與部分連帶責(zé)任[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2015年01期

8 楊立新;韓煦;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺(tái)提供者的法律地位與民事責(zé)任[J];江漢論壇;2014年05期

9 石蕾;;我國(guó)團(tuán)購(gòu)網(wǎng)站存在問題及對(duì)策分析[J];新經(jīng)濟(jì);2014年02期

10 黃煒;殷聰;;中國(guó)式網(wǎng)絡(luò)團(tuán)購(gòu)的現(xiàn)狀、問題、趨勢(shì)[J];圖書情報(bào)工作;2012年08期

，

本文編號(hào)：1578218