电商领域中“知假买假”纠纷的司法应对
Judicial Response to Disputes over “Buying Fake Products on Purpose” in the E-Commerce Sector
DOI: 10.12677/ecl.2024.1341542, PDF,   
作者: 洪振翔:浙江理工大学法政学院、史量才新闻与传播学院,浙江 杭州
关键词: 知假买假消费者界定惩罚性赔偿司法应对Knowing Falsehood and Buying Falsehood Consumer Definition Punitive Damages Judicial Response
摘要: 在当前电子商务迅速发展的市场背景下,“知假买假”行为及其引发的纠纷成为司法实践中亟待解决的复杂问题。面对此类行为,现行法律体系对于消费者权益保护与惩罚性赔偿请求权的适用存在争议,尤其是在食品安全领域,如何平衡消费者保护与市场秩序维护成为一个值得探讨的话题。为有效解决电商领域中“知假买假”纠纷带来的司法挑战,应从《消费者权益保护法》《食品安全法》等相关法律法规切入,分析“知假买假”行为的法律属性及其在电商领域的特殊表现,重点关注惩罚性赔偿制度的适用条件与界限。同时,考虑到“知假买假”行为同时具有损害消费者权益和促进市场自我净化构建的双层效应,司法考量中不宜采用一刀切的做法,而应构建一套既能鼓励合法维权又能遏制滥用诉权的机制。
Abstract: With the rapid development of e-commerce market, the behavior of “knowingly fake buying fake” and the disputes caused by it become a complex problem to be solved in judicial practice. In the face of such acts, the application of the protection of consumers’ rights and interests and the right to claim for punitive damages in the current legal system remains controversial, especially in the field of food safety. Thus, how to balance the protection of consumers and the maintenance of market order has become a topic worthy of discussion. In order to effectively solve the judicial challenges brought by disputes of “buying fake products on purpose” in the e-commerce field, we should analyze the legal attributes of “buying fake products on purpose” and the special performance in the e-commerce field from relevant laws and regulations of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests and the Food Safety Law, and focus on the application conditions and boundary of the punitive compensation system. Meanwhile, given that the act of “buying fake products with knowledge of fake products” has the dual effects of damaging consumer rights and interests and promoting the self-purification construction of the market, it is inadvisable to adopt a rigid approach in judicial studies, and a mechanism shall be built to encourage lawful protection of rights and curb abuse of the litigation right.
文章引用:洪振翔. 电商领域中“知假买假”纠纷的司法应对[J]. 电子商务评论, 2024, 13(4): 3450-3458. https://doi.org/10.12677/ecl.2024.1341542

参考文献

[1] 高志宏. 再论消费欺诈行为的构成要件[J]. 法学, 2023, 499(6): 178-192.
[2] 李可, 张文晋. 营利型维权经验评估裁判模式的评价与超越[J/OL]. 吉首大学学报(社会科学版): 1-10.
http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/43.1069.C.20240717.1141.004.html, 2024-09-13.
[3] 黄薇. 中华人民共和国民法典释义(下) [M]. 北京: 法律出版社, 2020: 2342.
[4] 田中英夫, 竹内昭夫, 著. 私人在法实现中的作用[M]. 李薇, 译. 北京: 法律出版社, 2006: 150-151.
[5] 郭明瑞. “知假买假”受消费者权益保护法保护吗?——兼论消费者权益保护法的适用范围[J]. 当代法学, 2015, 29(6): 68-73.
[6] 陈宜芳, 吴景丽, 谢勇, 等. 《最高人民法院关于审理食品药品惩罚性赔偿纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》的理解与适用[J]. 中国应用法学, 2024(4): 84-93.
[7] 熊丙万. 法律的形式与功能以“知假买假”案为分析范例[J]. 中外法学, 2017, 29(2): 300-339.
[8] Leigh Anenson, T. (2018) Judging Equity: The Fusion of Unclean Hands in U. S. Law. Cambridge University Press, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[9] 葛江虬. “知假买假”: 基于功能主义的评价标准构建与实践应用[J]. 法学家, 2020(1): 160-172, 196.
[10] Bar-Gill, O. (2014) Consumer Transactions. In: Zamir, E. and Teichman, D., Eds., The Oxford Handbook of Behavioral Economics and the Law, Oxford University Press, 466.
[11] 洪国盛. 论消费者保护法上的履行欺诈[J]. 南大法学, 2020(3): 33-53.
[12] 尚连杰. “知假买假”的效果证成与文本分析[J]. 华东政法大学学报, 2015(1): 81-91.
[13] 应飞虎. 禁止抑或限制?——知假买假行为规制研究[J]. 法学评论, 2019, 37(4): 63-78.
[14] 姚辉. 民法适用中的价值判断[J]. 中国法律评论, 2019(3): 93-112.
[15] 韩世远. 消费者合同三题: 知假买假、惩罚性赔偿与合同终了[J]. 法律适用, 2015(10): 87-92.
[16] Sampson, J. (2017) The Historical Foundations of Grotius’ Analysis of Delict. Brill, 35.
[17] 高志宏. 消费“欺诈行为”的司法认定及逻辑证成——基于38例典型案件的分析[J]. 学海, 2021(1): 158-166.
[18] 刘保玉, 魏振华. “知假买假”的理论阐释与法律适用[J]. 法学论坛, 2017, 32(3): 62-73.