本文選題：網(wǎng)絡(luò)購物 + 標價錯誤　； 參考：《西南政法大學》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：本文的研究成果在于，通過對合同的成立要件、可撤銷行為中的重大誤解和顯失公平和因錯誤撤銷的損害賠償責任進行具體詳細的闡述和分析，解決了網(wǎng)絡(luò)購物標價錯誤的一系列爭議問題。本文在論述過程中形成的自己的觀點，對于完善我國現(xiàn)行合同法體系、構(gòu)建電子商務(wù)法體系有很好的借鑒作用。更主要地，也即本文的初衷，是為解決現(xiàn)代社會生活中大量存在的網(wǎng)絡(luò)購物糾紛提供司法指導(dǎo)意見，使得不論是消費者還是經(jīng)營者在遭遇如此問題時都能夠得到合理的法律救濟。 本文分為六大部分： 第一部分，案例及引出的問題。通過大陸的當當網(wǎng)809錯價門案和臺灣戴爾案兩起網(wǎng)絡(luò)購物標價錯誤案例，分析訴爭雙方的主張和法院判決內(nèi)容，引出本文要探討的問題，這些問題分別在文章第二、三、四、五部分得到解答。 第二部分，網(wǎng)絡(luò)購物合同的成立。合同通過要約和承諾的方式成立，網(wǎng)絡(luò)購物合同要約和承諾的具體所指是討論重點。商品銷售網(wǎng)頁不能簡單界定為要約或者要約邀請，應(yīng)從要約的構(gòu)成要件進行分析。在現(xiàn)行法未作具體規(guī)定的情況下，交易條款作為格式條款應(yīng)被訂入合同，承認其效力。購物網(wǎng)站發(fā)出的訂單確認信的性質(zhì)，實務(wù)中也存在爭議，需要分情形具體討論。沒有法律規(guī)定付款一定是合同成立之后的履行行為，故應(yīng)按照交易條款之規(guī)定判斷合同成立與否，而非有付款行為即為合同成立。 第三部分，標價錯誤撤銷合同的適用條件。網(wǎng)絡(luò)購物標價錯誤的經(jīng)營者可以重大誤解請求撤銷合同，只是法院在面臨此類案件時，需要綜合考慮是否存在價格錯誤，根據(jù)網(wǎng)絡(luò)購物的具體情形進行判斷，如商品銷售網(wǎng)頁明確載明“促銷”字樣，認定重大誤解時就須嚴格審查。另外，還須考慮經(jīng)營者是否因標價錯誤存在重大損失，即商品市場價與網(wǎng)站標價之間是否存在較大差距；以及排除經(jīng)營者存在故意和重大過失心理狀態(tài)的情形。 第四部分，標價錯誤撤銷合同的法律后果。認為因錯誤撤銷合同的損害賠償責任應(yīng)為信賴責任，最好在電子商務(wù)相關(guān)立法中對網(wǎng)絡(luò)購物標價錯誤事件的經(jīng)營者賠償責任作統(tǒng)一明確的規(guī)定，使其具有一定的懲罰性和威懾力，促使經(jīng)營者在以后的網(wǎng)絡(luò)銷售中更加謹慎，也使產(chǎn)生合理信賴并有所付出的消費者獲得相應(yīng)的補償。 第五部分，顯失公平原因適用的可能性。如果主客觀要件同時具備、符合顯失公平構(gòu)成要件，經(jīng)營者也可以顯失公平為由請求撤銷合同；同時構(gòu)成重大誤解的，經(jīng)營者可以選擇其一。實踐中，因為顯失公平的構(gòu)成要件本身存在爭議，經(jīng)營者大多援用能夠直接體現(xiàn)標價錯誤的重大誤解制度進行權(quán)利救濟。 第六部分，本文得出的結(jié)論。
[Abstract]:The research result of this paper lies in the detailed elaboration and analysis of the elements of contract establishment, the major misunderstandings and obvious injustices in revocable acts and the liability for damages due to wrongful rescission. Has solved the network shopping price mistake a series of controversial questions. This article discusses the process of formation of their own views, for the improvement of the current contract law system, the construction of electronic commerce law system has a good reference. More importantly, the original intention of this paper is to provide judicial guidance for solving the numerous online shopping disputes in modern social life. Both consumers and operators can get reasonable legal remedies when they encounter such problems. This paper is divided into six parts: The first part, the case and the questions raised. Through two wrong online shopping pricing cases, Dangdang 809 mispricing case in mainland China and Taiwan Dell case, this paper analyzes the claims of both parties to the lawsuit and the content of the court judgment, and leads to the problems to be discussed in this paper. These problems are respectively in the second, third, and fourth of the article. Five parts are answered. The second part, the establishment of network shopping contract. The contract is established through offer and acceptance, and the specific indication of offer and acceptance of online shopping contract is the key point of discussion. The web page of merchandise sales can not be defined as an offer or an invitation to offer, but should be analyzed from the elements of the offer. In the absence of specific provisions in the Lex lata, the terms of the transaction shall be entered into the contract as a form clause and shall be recognized as valid. The nature of the order confirmation letter issued by the shopping website is also controversial in practice, which needs to be discussed in detail. There is no law that payment must be an act of performance after the establishment of the contract, so the contract should be judged according to the terms of the transaction, and not the act of payment is the establishment of the contract. The third part, the applicable conditions of the mis-bid rescission contract. Operators with wrong prices for online shopping can make a major misunderstanding and request for rescission of the contract, but when the court is faced with such cases, it needs to consider comprehensively whether there is a price error, and make a judgment according to the specific circumstances of online shopping. If the product sales page clearly contains the word "promotion", it should be strictly reviewed when a major misunderstanding is identified. In addition, it is necessary to consider whether the operator has significant losses due to the price error, that is, whether there is a big gap between the market price of the commodity and the price tag of the website, and to exclude the existence of intentional and gross negligence psychological state of the operator. The fourth part, the legal consequence of the wrong price rescission contract. It is considered that the liability for compensation for damages due to wrongful revocation of contracts should be the liability of trust, and it is better to make a unified and clear provision on the liability of the operators of the wrong online shopping pricing incidents in the relevant legislation of electronic commerce. So that it has a certain punitive and deterrent force, to promote the operator in the future network sales more cautious, but also to produce reasonable trust and pay consumers to get the corresponding compensation. The fifth part is about the possibility of applying the obvious unfair reasons. If the subjective and objective elements are present simultaneously, the operator may also request cancellation of the contract on the grounds of explicit inequity, and if it constitutes a major misunderstanding, the operator may choose one of them. In practice, because there are disputes about the constitutive elements of manifest inequity, most operators invoke the major misunderstanding system which can directly reflect the wrong price of price to carry out right relief. The sixth part, the conclusion of this paper.
【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D923.6;D920.5

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 徐曉峰;民事錯誤制度研究[J];法律科學.西北政法學院學報;2000年06期

2 朱廣新;;意思表示錯誤之撤銷與相對人的信賴保護[J];法律科學.西北政法學院學報;2006年04期

3 肖青山;;論電子合同中的電子錯誤[J];文史博覽;2006年20期

4 徐瀾波;;因重大誤解而撤銷或變更合同的法律問題——由旅客錯誤購買特價航空機票不能“簽轉(zhuǎn)退”引發(fā)的思考[J];法學;2009年04期

5 曾大鵬;;論顯失公平的構(gòu)成要件與體系定位[J];法學;2011年03期

6 孫良國;;私法上錯誤制度的重新構(gòu)造[J];華東政法學院學報;2006年01期

7 蔣云蔚;;論信賴責任[J];湖南經(jīng)濟管理干部學院學報;2006年03期

8 李偉;謝雪凱;;論合同法上的重大誤解[J];哈爾濱工業(yè)大學學報(社會科學版);2010年02期

9 劉滿達;電子格式合同效力的實證論析[J];南京經(jīng)濟學院學報;2003年01期

10 馬新彥;;論現(xiàn)代私法上的信賴規(guī)則[J];清華法學;2003年02期

，

本文編號：1792162