【摘要】：欺詐在合同法中是一種意思瑕疵 ,在信息社會(huì)里 ,欺詐作為誤導(dǎo)公眾的行為 ,是一種典型的不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)行為�！断M(fèi)者權(quán)益保護(hù)法》不能簡(jiǎn)單地視為合同法的特別法 ,欺詐的研究不應(yīng)拘泥于意思表示的狹隘范圍 ,反欺詐的消費(fèi)者權(quán)益保護(hù)應(yīng)納入反不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法的范疇來(lái)考察。從競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法的角度來(lái)看 ,欺詐不要求行為人具有主觀故意 ,一種行為只要在客觀上有誤導(dǎo)消費(fèi)者的效果 ,就足以構(gòu)成欺詐。欺詐的救濟(jì)措施 ,在主體設(shè)計(jì)、補(bǔ)救措施和賠償責(zé)任上均有區(qū)別于傳統(tǒng)合同欺詐的制度設(shè)計(jì)。
[Abstract]:Fraud is a kind of flaw in the contract law. In the information society, fraud acts as a misleading act of misleading the public. It is a typical unfair competition. The law of protection of the rights and interests of the consumer is not simply regarded as the special law of the contract law. The study of fraud should not be confined to the narrow scope of the expression of meaning, and the anti fraudulent consumer Quan Yibao Protection should be included in the category of anti unfair competition law. From the point of view of competition law, fraud does not require the perpetrator to have subjective intention. As long as it has the effect of misleading the consumer objectively, it is sufficient to constitute fraud. The relief measures of fraud are different from the traditional combination in the design of the main body, the remedy measures and the liability for compensation. The system of fraud is designed.
【作者單位】： 中山大學(xué)法學(xué)院
【分類號(hào)】：D923.8

【共引文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 朱廣新;;地役權(quán)概念的體系性解讀[J];法學(xué)研究;2007年04期

2 稅兵;;非營(yíng)利法人解釋[J];法學(xué)研究;2007年05期

3 吳國(guó)U，

本文編號(hào)：2144962