本文選題：消費(fèi)者　切入點(diǎn)：舉證責(zé)任倒置　出處：《安徽大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：消費(fèi)者權(quán)益保護(hù)方面,我國(guó)實(shí)體法層面的救濟(jì)規(guī)則已經(jīng)具備并且漸趨完善,但程序法層面的制度保障卻未跟進(jìn)。我國(guó)消費(fèi)者維權(quán)領(lǐng)域面臨維權(quán)案件多與維權(quán)難并存的現(xiàn)狀。作為主張方的消費(fèi)者,依據(jù)舉證責(zé)任分配的一般原則,難以承擔(dān)過重的舉證責(zé)任,舉證難已成為消費(fèi)者敗訴的主要原因。從保護(hù)消費(fèi)者權(quán)益的價(jià)值要求和實(shí)質(zhì)公正的價(jià)值追求出發(fā),為平衡當(dāng)事人的舉證能力,解決消費(fèi)者舉證難的現(xiàn)狀,急需完善消費(fèi)者維權(quán)案件中的舉證責(zé)任分配制度,通過舉證責(zé)任倒置制度的設(shè)置,對(duì)部分消費(fèi)者難以舉證證明的事實(shí)由對(duì)方當(dāng)事人以否定的形式予以證明,以平衡舉證責(zé)任的分擔(dān),實(shí)現(xiàn)法律的實(shí)質(zhì)公正。消費(fèi)者維權(quán)案件或涉及產(chǎn)品責(zé)任糾紛或涉及合同糾紛。消費(fèi)者維權(quán)案件舉證責(zé)任倒置是相對(duì)于"正置"而言的,是以舉證責(zé)任分配的一般規(guī)則為前提條件。糾紛的性質(zhì)以及歸責(zé)原則對(duì)舉證責(zé)任的分配起著決定的影響,對(duì)于舉證責(zé)任倒置制度在司法實(shí)踐中的確定性、穩(wěn)定性至關(guān)重要。然而,在產(chǎn)品責(zé)任的立法體系中,對(duì)于產(chǎn)品責(zé)任與產(chǎn)品瑕疵擔(dān)保責(zé)任未明確界定,以至于對(duì)于產(chǎn)品責(zé)任的性質(zhì)存在不同的理解,導(dǎo)致舉證責(zé)任分配的混亂。立法關(guān)于產(chǎn)品責(zé)任歸責(zé)原則的表述過于模糊、籠統(tǒng),因此在司法實(shí)踐中往往也產(chǎn)生歧義。在具體的舉證責(zé)任倒置方面,僅有生產(chǎn)者就產(chǎn)品缺陷的舉證責(zé)任倒置的規(guī)定,對(duì)于同樣實(shí)行嚴(yán)格責(zé)任的銷售者是否實(shí)就產(chǎn)品缺陷實(shí)行舉證責(zé)任倒置未做規(guī)定。侵權(quán)糾紛中的侵權(quán)事實(shí)、因果關(guān)系是否實(shí)行舉證責(zé)任倒置等立法亦未做特別規(guī)定。舉證責(zé)任倒置主要存在于侵權(quán)領(lǐng)域,合同領(lǐng)域鮮有倒置的規(guī)定。消費(fèi)者維權(quán)中合同糾紛的舉證責(zé)任倒置在新修訂的《消法》中就部分耐用商品或服務(wù)6個(gè)月內(nèi)出現(xiàn)瑕疵的舉證責(zé)任倒置作了規(guī)定。遺憾的是該條規(guī)定的舉證責(zé)任的倒置的適用范圍有限,且適用期限僅限于接受商品或者服務(wù)之日起6個(gè)月內(nèi)出現(xiàn)瑕疵的情形。由于立法就消費(fèi)者維權(quán)案件的舉證責(zé)任規(guī)定的不明確,以及舉證責(zé)任倒置規(guī)定的不完善,導(dǎo)致司法實(shí)踐中舉證責(zé)任分配的隨意性傾向,同一類型的消費(fèi)者維權(quán)案件,處理的結(jié)果卻不相同,違背了"類似案件應(yīng)作類似處理"的正義原則。反思問題以便于思考消費(fèi)者維權(quán)案件舉證責(zé)任倒置制度的完善措施�？紤]到法律價(jià)值對(duì)于具體制度具有穩(wěn)定的指導(dǎo)意義及具體因素對(duì)于具體制度的影響,因此從實(shí)體法、司法解釋、判例、當(dāng)事人約定幾個(gè)方面來完善我國(guó)消費(fèi)者維權(quán)案件舉證倒置制度。首先,以立法的形式規(guī)定舉證責(zé)任倒置的基本規(guī)則。產(chǎn)品責(zé)任方面,明確產(chǎn)品責(zé)任的性質(zhì)及其舉證責(zé)任的分擔(dān),明確倒置的對(duì)象;瑕疵擔(dān)保責(zé)任方面,適當(dāng)擴(kuò)大舉證倒置規(guī)則的適用范圍,確定合理的舉證倒置規(guī)則的適用期限。其次,舉證責(zé)任倒置規(guī)則司法適用要實(shí)現(xiàn)規(guī)范化。嚴(yán)格限定司法上舉證責(zé)任倒置的適用條件;靈活運(yùn)用事實(shí)推定。最后,允許當(dāng)事人對(duì)部分事實(shí)約定舉證責(zé)任倒置規(guī)則。
[Abstract]:The protection of consumer rights, remedy rules of entity law in our country has the level and gradually perfect, but the system security level of procedural law does not follow up. Our field of consumer rights situation rights cases and rights difficult. At the same time as the main party of consumers, according to the general principle of the allocation of the burden of proof is difficult to bear the heavy burden of proof, the burden of proof is difficult has become the main reason of consumers losing. From the value requirement of protecting the rights and interests of consumers and the value pursuit of substantive justice, to balance the burden of proof, the burden of proof is difficult to solve the current situation of consumers, there is an urgent need to improve the allocation of the burden of proof system in the case of consumer rights, through the institution of the burden of proof is. On the part of the consumer to prove the facts by the other party in the form of a negative proof, to balance the burden of proof, implementation The justice of the law. The case of consumer rights or product liability disputes or contract dispute involving consumer rights cases. The burden of proof is relative to the "positive", is based on the general rules of the allocation of the burden of proof is a prerequisite. Distribution of the nature of the dispute and the imputation principle of the burden of proof plays a decisive influence for sure, in the judicial practice of the institution of the burden of proof of stability is essential. However, the legislative system in product liability, not to define product liability and product warranty liability, so that there are different understanding of the nature of product liability, resulting in the allocation of the burden of proof chaos. Legislation on product liability doctrine expression is too vague and general, so in the judicial practice is often ambiguous. In the burden of proof concrete, only the producers would lack the product The provisions of burden of proof in the strict liability of the seller for the same product defects whether implementation of the burden of proof is not stipulated. The fact of infringement infringement, causality is the reversal of the burden of proof and other legislation without special provisions. Proof responsibility inversion mainly exists in the field of tort, contract hard inverted the burden of proof. Consumer rights in the contract dispute in the newly revised law on the part of < > in durable goods or services occur within 6 months of burden of proof of the defects of the regulations. Unfortunately, the scope of the provisions of the burden of proof of the finite, and the applicable deadline only accept goods or from the date of service defects occurred within 6 months. Because the legislation is the burden of consumer rights cases the provisions of the provisions is not clear, and the burden of proof is not Perfect, resulting in the judicial practice of burden of proof in the random allocation of the tendency of the same type of consumer rights cases, the result is not the same, contrary to the "principle of justice similar cases should make similar processing. In order to reflect the problems about consumer rights cases the burden of proof measures to improve the system. Taking into account the legal value for the system has stable and specific factors guiding significance for the influence of specific system, so from the substantive law, judicial interpretation, judicial precedent, the parties agreed on several aspects to perfect our country consumer rights cases Juzhengdaozhi system. Firstly, the basic rules of burden of proof in the form of legislative provisions. Product liability, clear product liability and the burden of proof, the clear object inverted; warranty liability, the scope and expand the Juzhengdaozhi rules, determine the reasonable The time limit for application of the inversion rule is followed. Secondly, the judicial application of the inversion rule of the burden of proof should be standardized. Strictly limit the applicable conditions for the inversion of the burden of proof in the judiciary, and use the fact presumption flexibly. Finally, allow the parties to agree on the inversion rule of the burden of proof for some facts.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：安徽大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923.8

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 陳年冰;我國(guó)懲罰性賠償制度研究[D];山東大學(xué);2013年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 葉苗;食品安全領(lǐng)域懲罰性賠償責(zé)任制度適用研究[D];河南師范大學(xué);2013年

，

本文編號(hào)：1723282