本文選題：網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺提供者 + 侵權(quán)責(zé)任�。� 參考：《青島大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)蓬勃發(fā)展的今天,電子商務(wù)改變了人們傳統(tǒng)的生活方式。網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺也隨之興起,它不僅為商家提供了廣闊的平臺,也為人們的生活帶來了巨大的便利,成為了電子商務(wù)產(chǎn)業(yè)的重要組成部分。然而,在網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺一片欣欣向榮的背后,網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺提供者涉及的侵權(quán)事件也隨著頻頻發(fā)生,這成為網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺提供者面臨的難以回避的局面。近幾年,有很多熱點侵權(quán)案件都是圍繞著網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易發(fā)生的。網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺給人們生活帶來便利的同時,也由于其特殊性而嚴(yán)重侵害了消費者的相關(guān)權(quán)益,如知情權(quán)、公平交易權(quán)等,增加了消費者的交易風(fēng)險。由于網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺商品或服務(wù)的提供者(以下稱網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺經(jīng)營者)隱蔽性強(qiáng)的特點,使得消費者只能向網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺提供者主張權(quán)利。因此近年來,網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺經(jīng)營者和平臺提供者作為共同被告的訴訟案件屢見不鮮。在此趨勢下,2013年《消費者權(quán)益保護(hù)法》(以下簡稱消保法)修改了第44條,對網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺提供者的侵權(quán)責(zé)任做出規(guī)定,說明這一民事主體在我國法律中得到確認(rèn)。由于網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺提供者的具體情況不同,其承擔(dān)的法律責(zé)任也不盡相同,有的承擔(dān)侵權(quán)責(zé)任的同時,尚需承擔(dān)行政責(zé)任、刑事責(zé)任,但本文重點探討其侵權(quán)責(zé)任。雖然相關(guān)法律法規(guī)對其侵權(quán)責(zé)任進(jìn)行了規(guī)定,但對于網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺提供者的法律地位、法律義務(wù)、侵權(quán)責(zé)任等各方面的規(guī)定尚不具體或明確,造成司法實踐中對法規(guī)的理解和適用出現(xiàn)了很多模糊地帶,直接導(dǎo)致消費者維權(quán)艱難。本文試圖總結(jié)現(xiàn)有學(xué)者對于網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺提供者侵權(quán)責(zé)任的研究成果,通過分析、比較、歸納等方法,對相關(guān)問題進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)的理論研究,以期明晰網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺提供者的侵權(quán)責(zé)任。本文共分為四個章節(jié)。第一章通過論述網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺提供者的概念及特征,分析其法律地位。第二章系統(tǒng)闡述了網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺提供者的侵權(quán)行為。第三章從構(gòu)成條件、歸責(zé)原則、侵權(quán)責(zé)任形態(tài)這三個方面入手,探討網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺提供者的侵權(quán)責(zé)任。第四章分析討論了國內(nèi)外網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺提供者侵權(quán)責(zé)任的立法現(xiàn)狀和我國立法的不足,對完善我國網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺提供者侵權(quán)責(zé)任的立法提出了建議。
[Abstract]:With the rapid development of the Internet, electronic commerce has changed people's traditional way of life. With the rise of network trading platform, it not only provides a broad platform for businesses, but also brings great convenience to people's lives, and becomes an important part of e-commerce industry. However, behind the flourishing of the network trading platform, the infringement incidents involving the network trading platform providers also occur frequently, which becomes the unavoidable situation that the network trading platform providers are faced with. In recent years, there are a lot of hot-spot infringement cases are around the network transactions. While the network trading platform brings convenience to people's life, because of its particularity, it seriously infringes on the related rights and interests of consumers, such as the right to know, the right to fair trade, and so on, which increases the transaction risk of consumers. Because of the strong concealment of the providers of goods or services (hereinafter referred to as the operators of the network trading platform), consumers can only claim the rights of the online trading platform providers. Therefore, in recent years, online trading platform operators and platform providers as joint defendants litigation cases are common. Under this trend, in 2013, the Consumer Rights and interests Protection Law (hereinafter referred to as the Law on the Elimination of Insurance) amended Article 44 to stipulate the tort liability of the provider of the network trading platform, which indicates that this civil subject has been confirmed in the law of our country. Because the specific situation of the network trading platform provider is different, its legal liability is not the same, some assume tort liability, at the same time, still need to bear administrative responsibility, criminal responsibility, but this article focuses on its tort liability. Although the relevant laws and regulations provide for its tort liability, the legal status, legal obligations, tort liability and other aspects of the network trading platform provider are not specific or clear. In judicial practice, there are a lot of fuzzy areas in the understanding and application of laws and regulations, which directly lead to the difficulty of consumer rights. This paper attempts to summarize the existing scholars for network trading platform provider tort liability research results, through analysis, comparison, induction and other methods, related issues are systematically theoretical research. In order to clarify the network trading platform provider tort liability. This paper is divided into four chapters. The first chapter discusses the concept and characteristics of network trading platform provider, and analyzes its legal status. The second chapter systematically expounds the infringement of network trading platform provider. The third chapter discusses the tort liability of the network trading platform provider from three aspects: the constitution condition, the liability principle and the form of tort liability. The fourth chapter analyzes and discusses the domestic and foreign network trading platform provider tort liability legislation status quo and the lack of legislation in our country, to improve our network trading platform provider tort liability legislation put forward suggestions.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：青島大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D922.294

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

中國期刊全文數(shù)據(jù)庫 前9條

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

2 楊立新;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺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);2015年01期

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

4 王斯瀅;崔青青;;淺析網(wǎng)絡(luò)團(tuán)購主體法律關(guān)系及其違約責(zé)任認(rèn)定[J];法制博覽(中旬刊);2012年12期

5 吳漢東;;侵權(quán)責(zé)任法視野下的網(wǎng)絡(luò)侵權(quán)責(zé)任解析[J];法商研究;2010年06期

6 陳立思;;淘寶運營模式下的法律責(zé)任解析[J];中國商界(下半月);2010年05期

7 楊立新;;《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》規(guī)定的網(wǎng)絡(luò)侵權(quán)責(zé)任的理解與解釋[J];國家檢察官學(xué)院學(xué)報;2010年02期

8 張新寶;;侵權(quán)責(zé)任法立法的利益衡量[J];中國法學(xué);2009年04期

9 吳仙桂;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺的法律定位[J];重慶郵電大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2008年06期

中國碩士學(xué)位論文全文數(shù)據(jù)庫 前2條

1 程凱;網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺提供商侵權(quán)責(zé)任研究[D];湖南師范大學(xué);2016年

2 魯泠汐;網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺提供者民事責(zé)任研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2015年

，

本文編號：1906904