發(fā)布時間：2018-06-24 20:29

  本文選題：消費者 + 后悔權(quán)��； 參考：《大連海事大學(xué)》2016年碩士論文

【摘要】：在新《消費者權(quán)益保護法》第25條中后悔權(quán)內(nèi)容的行使問題上必須首先理解后悔權(quán)的定義與性質(zhì),后悔權(quán)形成與發(fā)展背景以及其權(quán)利的特征等相關(guān)概念的定義,厘清關(guān)于可退貨商品的范圍,明確"退貨"、"完好性"、"舉證責(zé)任"、"七日起算時間"等詞語在實踐中適用時的理解和進一步的法律解釋適用,在后悔權(quán)行使的運行層面中涉及的一些有關(guān)于"商家不適用條款"的性質(zhì)與法律效果等相關(guān)對策的細化,補充和研究進行合法合理的分析。通過將后悔權(quán)與相關(guān)制度進行對比,突出后悔權(quán)的獨特性和新穎性以及在實踐操作中有關(guān)行使后悔權(quán)需要注意的問題,從而充分利用起新消法中有關(guān)七天無理由退貨的亮點規(guī)定,使消費者權(quán)益保護落入實質(zhì)。關(guān)于行使后悔權(quán)中的舉證責(zé)任分配的解釋論證過程中,采取比較法的方法,參考美國和德國立法方面對電子商務(wù)中網(wǎng)絡(luò)購物的相關(guān)論據(jù)為舉證責(zé)任分配的論點提供進一步的佐證和參考,主張電子商務(wù)交易中的不同主體承擔(dān)不同的舉證責(zé)任內(nèi)容,以賣方與買方為中心,同時也加入了快遞公司與第三方交易平臺的相關(guān)連帶責(zé)任,使內(nèi)容得到合理分配和細化。而之所以引入比較法是希望通過其他國家在此法域方面的回答及表述為我國的電商發(fā)展提供一定程度的參考價值。此外筆者集聚了后悔權(quán)的相關(guān)問題,其中包括對于后悔權(quán)行使中的相關(guān)費用承擔(dān),切實關(guān)系到消費者經(jīng)濟利益,將其分類為發(fā)貨費用的負擔(dān),運費險,手續(xù)費三個方面進行分別論證。同時針對手續(xù)費問題,筆者采用一分為二的觀點進行論證,主張在某些特定情況下收取適當(dāng)?shù)氖掷m(xù)費,在退還價款階段進行扣除,前提是必須與消費者進行合理協(xié)商,盡到告知義務(wù)。此外也論證了后悔權(quán)行使的起算時間問題,詳細論證了后悔權(quán)行使的起始時間計算,防止消費者因時效期滿而無法正常行使后悔權(quán)。以及有關(guān)后悔權(quán)訴訟中需要注意的一些問題。并提出了實踐中部分消費者的濫用權(quán)利的行為,造成后悔權(quán)的惡意行使,也違反了民法中的禁止權(quán)利濫用的原則,市場應(yīng)對這部分群體進行引導(dǎo)和規(guī)制。新《消費者權(quán)益保護法》第25條內(nèi)容的出臺以及2016年2月6日國家工商總局發(fā)布的《網(wǎng)絡(luò)購買商品七日無理由退貨指引》(征求意見稿),對后悔權(quán)行使內(nèi)容的解釋法越來越詳盡。筆者也提出了對后悔權(quán)立法相關(guān)的意見和建議,包括明確后悔權(quán)行使的適用范圍,制定商品完好性標準,統(tǒng)一后悔權(quán)爭議的處理規(guī)則,建立遠程交易個人誠信體系。相信隨著立法的完善和實踐中的經(jīng)驗總結(jié),以及我國立法中與時俱進的精神的融合,后悔權(quán)制度將在以后的電子交易中發(fā)揮重要的作用。
[Abstract]:In Article 25 of the new Law on Protection of Consumer Rights and interests, we must first understand the definition and nature of the right of regret, the background of the formation and development of the right of regret, the characteristics of the right of regret, and so on, on the issue of the exercise of the content of the right of regret. To clarify the scope of returnable goods and to clarify the understanding and further legal interpretation of the terms "return", "completeness", "burden of proof" and "7-day counting time" in practice. In the operational level of the exercise of the right of regret, there are some related countermeasures about the nature and legal effect of the "merchant non-applicable clause", which are detailed, supplemented and studied to carry out legal and reasonable analysis. By comparing the right of regret with the relevant systems, it highlights the uniqueness and novelty of the right of regret and the problems concerning the exercise of the right of regret in practice. Thus, it makes full use of the bright spot provisions of the new law on seven days' unjustified return, so that the protection of consumers' rights and interests falls into essence. In the process of explaining the distribution of the burden of proof in the exercise of the right of regret, a comparative method is adopted. Referring to the relevant arguments of the United States and Germany on online shopping in electronic commerce, this paper provides further evidence and reference for the argument of burden of proof, and advocates that different subjects in e-commerce transactions bear different burden of proof. Taking the seller and buyer as the center, and adding the joint and several liability of the express company and the third party trading platform, the content can be reasonably distributed and refined. The reason for the introduction of comparative law is to provide a certain degree of reference value for the development of e-commerce in China through the answers and expressions of other countries in this jurisdiction. In addition, the author focuses on the issues related to the right of regret, including the bearing of related expenses in the exercise of the right of regret, which has a real bearing on the economic interests of consumers, and classifies it as the burden of shipping costs, freight risks, Three aspects of the handling fee are demonstrated separately. At the same time, in view of the problem of handling fees, the author uses the viewpoint of split into two to argue that the appropriate handling fees should be collected under certain specific circumstances and deducted at the stage of refund of the price, provided that reasonable consultation with consumers is necessary. Fulfill the obligation to inform. In addition, the beginning time of the exercise of the right of regret is also demonstrated, and the calculation of the starting time of the exercise of the right of regret is demonstrated in detail, so as to prevent consumers from exercising the right of regret normally due to the expiration of the limitation period. And some problems that need to be paid attention to in the litigation of the right of regret. It also puts forward the behavior of abuse of rights of some consumers in practice, which results in the malicious exercise of the right of regret and violates the principle of prohibiting abuse of rights in the civil law. The market should guide and regulate this part of the group. With the introduction of Article 25 of the new Law on Protection of Consumer Rights and the publication of the guidelines for the unjustified return of goods purchased on the Internet by the State Administration of Industry and Commerce on February 6, 2016 (draft for soliciting opinions), the law on the interpretation of the content of the exercise of the right of regret is becoming more and more detailed. The author also puts forward some opinions and suggestions on the legislation of the right of regret, including clarifying the scope of application of the exercise of the right of regret, formulating the standards of commodity integrity, unifying the rules of handling disputes over the right of regret, and establishing a system of personal integrity in remote trading. It is believed that with the perfection of legislation, the summing up of experience in practice and the fusion of the spirit of advancing with the times in the legislation of our country, the system of the right of regret will play an important role in the future electronic transaction.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：大連海事大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：D923.8

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張秀欽;;“后悔權(quán)”至少是一根稻草[J];法制資訊;2009年06期

2 李麗;;淺論《消費者權(quán)益保護法》中后悔權(quán)的建立[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(中旬刊);2009年08期

3 侯先鋒;;論后悔權(quán)制度實施的保障[J];阜陽師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2009年05期

4 周子凡;;消費者后悔權(quán)的冷思考[J];行政與法;2010年01期

5 韓平;侯先鋒;;試論“后悔權(quán)”設(shè)立之法學(xué)證成[J];河南司法警官職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報;2010年02期

6 彭斌;;理性看待消費者權(quán)益保護法中的后悔權(quán)制度[J];法制與社會;2010年23期

7 韓平;侯先鋒;;試論“后悔權(quán)”設(shè)立之法學(xué)證成[J];貴州警官職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報;2010年03期

8 汪夏s，

本文編號：2062819