【作者】 程俊；

【导师】 史浩明；

【作者基本信息】 苏州大学 ， 民商法学， 2013， 硕士

【摘要】 声明不保真拍卖法律制度是国际拍卖行业的惯例，我国《拍卖法》、《拍卖管理办法》对此也作出了规定，但是我国法律所规定的声明不保真制度并不就是传统意义上的该制度，存在较多的问题，这在很大程度上导致了我国目前文物艺术品拍卖市场赝品泛滥的乱象。具体而言，我国的声明不保真制度在适用中存在以下问题：一是法律适用方面存在争议，声明不保真问题能否直接适用《合同法》、《消费者权益保护法》的规定，对此一直有不同的观点；二是拍卖人审核义务的范围不明确，即对于拍卖人审核拍卖标的需要到何种程度才算是尽到了义务有不同的理解；三是我国《拍卖法》关于声明不保真的规定有很多的漏洞，拍卖人以此为挡箭牌，通过各种市场手段逃避本应承担的责任。相比而言，国外拍卖业发达国家也有关于声明不保真的规定，但是它们的拍卖市场却很少有拍到赝品的纠纷。英美等国家的拍卖活动主要由行业协会的行业规范和拍卖企业的规章制度来调整，实践中各大拍卖行为了维护自己的声誉，对于发生的赝品纠纷，只要符合规定的条件，实际上又都会承担赝品退货的责任。为了解决我国目前拍卖市场赝品泛滥的乱象，笔者建议在结合我国拍卖市场实际情况的基础上，借鉴国外拍卖业发达国家的先进经验和制度，完善我国的声明不保真制度。笔者认为，具体应当分阶段来实施：首先对我国《拍卖法》关于声明不保真的规定作出严格的限制：一是该制度只适用于难以确知拍卖标的真伪的场合；二是不保真的声明必须是明确的、具体的；三是对拍品的正面介绍、宣传不得超过合理限度；四是不保真声明必须以显要方式出现。同时落实好文物艺术品的鉴定、拍卖监管等配套工作，保障修改、完善后的我国《拍卖法》关于声明不保真的规定在实践中得到贯彻落实。此后，为了使我国的拍卖业与国际接轨，适时可以借鉴国际上通行的赝品退货的做法，完善我国拍卖行业规范中的赝品退货制度。更多还原

【Abstract】 The auction law system that the statement did not guarantee genuine is practice ofinternational auction industry. Our country’s “Auction Law” and “Auction managementmeasures” has also made the rules. But our country’s rule is different from the traditionalrule, which exists many problems, this largely lead to the fake flooding chaos in ourcountry’s present cultural relic and art work auction market. Specifically, our country’ssystem that the statement did not guarantee genuine exists following problems. Firstly,there is dispute in the law application, whether the problem of statement did not guaranteegenuine can apply the “Contract Law” and “Consumer rights and interests protection law”directly or not has different opinions; Secondly, auctioneer’s audit scope is not clear, thereis different understanding to auctioneer’s audit need to what extent is full obligations;Thirdly, Our country’s “Auction Law” about the statement did not guarantee genuine ruleexists many problems, auctioneer regard them as shields and escape responsibility indifferent market ways.In contrast, Britain and America where the auction is developed also have the rule ofthe statement did not guarantee genuine. But there are few disputes about fake in theirauction market. The auction activity in countries such as Britain and America is mainlyadjusted by industry association’s standards and auction enterprises’ rules and regulations.In order to maintain their reputation, many auctions assume responsibility to return inpractice when they encountered fake disputes as long as meeting the prescribed conditions.In order to solve the fake flooding chaos in our country’s present auction market, weshould combine with our country’s actual situation in auction market, learn from theadvanced experience and institutions of foreign auction industry in developed countries,improve the system that the statement did not guarantee genuine. The author thinks itshould be divided into two stages to improve. The first stage，we emphasis on making strict restrictions on our country’s system that the statement did not guarantee genuine. Firstly,this system only applies to the occasion that unable to know the authenticity. Secondly, thestatement did not guarantee genuine should be clear and specific. Thirdly, the introductionand propaganda should not exceed the reasonable limit. Fourthly, the statement did notguarantee genuine should appear in significant ways. When all measures of the first stageare carried out effectively, in order to make the auctioning industry in our country in linewith international standards, we can learn from International accepted practices of fakereturn, establish our country’s fake return system.更多还原