我国《消费者权益保护法》中的惩罚性赔偿制度

【作者】 余恒；

【导师】 侯健；

【作者基本信息】 复旦大学 ， 法律， 2010， 硕士

【摘要】 惩罚性赔偿制度产生于英美法系,后来逐渐扩展到其他国家,包括传统上不认同这一制度原理的一些大陆法系国家。我国1993年颁布的《消费者权益保护法》中第49条确立了惩罚性赔偿制度,之后颁布的《合同法》中第113条肯定了这一制度的合同责任性质。惩罚性赔偿制度的确立体现了对消费者倾斜保护的理念,具有重要意义。但同时,《消费者权益保护法》中惩罚性赔偿的规定仍有一些不足之处,没有在消费领域充分发挥其应有的作用。其中的原因一方面在于上世纪九十年代初期所确立的相关规定在某些方面已不能适应当今社会经济的发展；另一方面在于相关法律条款对惩罚性赔偿制度构成要件的规定不够明确和科学。本文以讨论我国《消费者权益保护法》中惩罚性赔偿制度为主题,主体内容分为三章。第一章主要阐述我国《消费者权益保护法》中惩罚性赔偿制度确立时的社会经济背景,并对我国惩罚性赔偿制度的作用进行探讨。也指出了这一制度由于不能适应社会经济的发展而表现出的局限性。第二章旨在讨论《消费者权益保护法》中惩罚性赔偿制度的现状,细致分析了这一制度的构成条件,解析了现行的制度内容及其不足之处。论文指出,该制度将适用范围限定在合同违约损失方面,再加上双倍赔偿的惩罚金数额限制,使得这一制度在一些情况下不能有效地发挥惩罚、威慑功能。第三章就如何完善这一制度进行了探讨。论文建议,由于消费者相对于经营者的弱势地位,只要经营者故意实施欺诈行为,即使消费者没有因为经营者的行为而陷入错误认识,也可以请求支付惩罚赔偿金。论文指出,肯定“知假买假”者的惩罚性赔偿请求权有助于惩罚、威慑经营者的欺诈行为。论文还就举证责任、赔偿金计算方式等问题进行分析并提出制度建言。更多还原

【Abstract】 The theory of punitive damages is originated from Common Law. It has been one of the disputed questions since it came to exist.In Civil Law, damage compensate plays an dominant role in compensate theory, therefore Civil Law countries have not absorbed punitive damages liability directly. However, it has already appeared in many Civil Law countries. The Article 49 of Protection of Consumers Rights and Interests of our country was thought to be the first attempt to introduce punitive damages liability in our country, later punitive damages liability was confirmed in Contract Law. Punitive damages liability has established the belief of giving consumers substantial protection; therefore, it has its own significance. But punitive damages liability can not maximize its function mainly due to two reasons:First, it came to exist in 1990s and based itself on the social and economic conditions at that time. Second, the regulation of punitive damages liability is not scientific enough and needs to be carefully designed.This article is divided into four parts. First part introduces the social and economic conditions in 1990s when Protection of Consumers Rights and Interests was issued, in which punitive damages liability’s insufficiencies rooted. Second part, I analyze how punitive damages liability is regulated in Protection of Consumers Rights and Interests and point out that our punitive damages root in liability of breaking a contract but not liability of tort. Our punitive damages liability can not maximize itself also because of its limitation on the amount of compensations, which are two times the costs that the consumers paid for the commodities purchased or services received. Meanwhile, as consumers are much less professional than business operators in business, consumers can ask for punitive damages when business operators engage in fraudulent activities deliberately. Also, I think we should support the consumers who buy fake while knowing it, and who start lawsuits to get compensations. In the third part, I put forward the proposals on how to perfect our punitive damages system in Protection of Consumers Rights and Interests.更多还原