本文選題：消費(fèi)者 + 反悔權(quán)　； 參考：《海南大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：在市場交易中過程中,消費(fèi)者由于缺乏相關(guān)專業(yè)知識(shí)與信息加之能力有限等因素,消費(fèi)者的合法權(quán)益難以得到完全的實(shí)現(xiàn),此時(shí),消費(fèi)者的反悔權(quán)這一新型權(quán)利應(yīng)運(yùn)而生。作為一種傾斜保護(hù)消費(fèi)者權(quán)益的制度,反悔權(quán)制度是以賦予消費(fèi)者在購買商品或者服務(wù)的一段法定期間內(nèi),無須任何理由便可取消購買同時(shí)也無須承擔(dān)任何責(zé)任的權(quán)利。反悔權(quán)制度符合社會(huì)主義法治理念的公平正義原則和經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)中的效率原則,也是法治國家對市場經(jīng)濟(jì)運(yùn)行的干預(yù)和調(diào)控的一種手段。反悔權(quán)制度是保護(hù)消費(fèi)者權(quán)益發(fā)展的趨勢,是市場經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的必然選擇。 2013年新修改的《消費(fèi)者權(quán)益保護(hù)法》中增加了反悔權(quán)的規(guī)定。雖然新法中增加了反悔權(quán)的規(guī)定,但是其規(guī)定過于籠統(tǒng)和簡單,可操作性較弱,不能夠滿足我國消費(fèi)者權(quán)益保護(hù)的實(shí)際需求。文章通過對反悔權(quán)的研究,聯(lián)系當(dāng)前的中國國情,并且吸取世界發(fā)達(dá)國家及地區(qū)立法精華,通過梳理我國反悔權(quán)的立法進(jìn)程、分析我國消費(fèi)者反悔權(quán)的不足,并就反悔權(quán)的具體制度設(shè)計(jì)提出完善建議。 文章除了引言和結(jié)語部分外,共分為四大部分： 第一部分,目前我國的反悔權(quán)立法現(xiàn)狀。這個(gè)部分包括三個(gè)方面,一是地方立法,主要有地方性法規(guī)和規(guī)章；二是司法解釋中關(guān)于反悔權(quán)的規(guī)定；最后是國家層面立法,主要包括法律,行政法規(guī)及部門規(guī)章。從三個(gè)方面來梳理反悔權(quán)的立法歷程,在梳理過程中可以看出反悔權(quán)制度在我國法律層面的發(fā)展才剛剛起步,立法中仍存在較多的不完善之處。 第二部分,分析當(dāng)前我國反悔權(quán)的立法不足。我國反悔權(quán)制度的不足是多方面的,主要有適用范圍的窄、行使方式不完善、缺乏經(jīng)營者告知義務(wù)、雙方承擔(dān)法律責(zé)任以及未平衡消費(fèi)者與經(jīng)營者利益等方面,文章在這一部分將對這些不足作出逐一的分析。 第三部分,域外的反悔權(quán)立法規(guī)定及借鑒。文章主要考察了英、美、德、日等發(fā)達(dá)國家的反悔權(quán)制度以及我國臺(tái)灣地區(qū)的反悔權(quán)相關(guān)規(guī)定,并且在此基礎(chǔ)上得到啟示,在立法層級(jí)、適用范圍、反悔權(quán)適用期限以及經(jīng)營者告知義務(wù)等方面予以借鑒。 第四部分,我國反悔權(quán)的的完善對策。此部分為文章的重點(diǎn)部分,主要針對第二部分的不足重點(diǎn)闡述的。通過借鑒各國的立法規(guī)定,再聯(lián)系中國實(shí)際國情,從拓寬消費(fèi)者反悔權(quán)制度的適用范圍、完善其行使要件、強(qiáng)化經(jīng)營者告知義務(wù)、明確雙方法律責(zé)任以及維護(hù)雙方利益平衡等方面對我國消費(fèi)者反悔權(quán)提出完善建議。
[Abstract]:In the process of market transaction, due to the lack of relevant professional knowledge and information and limited ability, the legitimate rights and interests of consumers are difficult to be fully realized. At this time, the new right of consumers' reneging right arises at the historic moment. As a system in favor of protecting the rights and interests of consumers, the system of retrogression gives consumers the right to cancel the purchase of goods or services without any reason during the legal period of purchase of goods or services. The system of reneging right accords with the principle of fairness and justice of the socialist concept of rule of law and the principle of efficiency in economic activities. It is also a means of intervention and regulation in the operation of market economy by a country ruled by law. The system of retrogression is the trend of protecting consumers' rights and interests and the inevitable choice of the development of market economy. In 2013, the newly amended Consumer Rights and interests Protection Act added the right of retrogression. Although the new law has added the provisions of the right of retrogression, its provisions are too general and simple, and can not meet the actual needs of the protection of the rights and interests of consumers in our country. Through the research on the right of retrogression, connecting with the current situation of China, and absorbing the essence of the legislation of developed countries and regions in the world, the article analyzes the deficiency of the right of retrogression in our country by combing the legislative process of the right of retrogression in our country. And puts forward the perfect suggestion to the concrete system design of the right of retrogression. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the article is divided into four parts: The first part, the current situation of the legislation of the right of retrogression in our country. This part includes three aspects: first, local legislation, mainly local laws and regulations; second, the provisions of judicial interpretation on the right of abrogation; finally, legislation at the national level, mainly including laws, administrative regulations and departmental regulations. From three aspects to sort out the legislative process of the right of retrogression, we can see that the development of the system of the right of estoppel in the legal level of our country has just started, and there are still many imperfections in the legislation. The second part, analyzes the current legislation insufficiency of the right of estoppel in our country. There are many shortcomings in the system of the right of estoppel in our country, such as the narrow scope of application, the imperfect way of exercising, the lack of the obligation of informing the operators, the legal liability of both sides and the imbalance between the interests of consumers and operators, and so on. In this part, the article will make an analysis of these deficiencies one by one. The third part, the extraterritorial legislative provisions and reference of the right to estoppel. The article mainly examines the system of the right of estoppel in the developed countries such as Britain, the United States, Germany and Japan, and the relevant provisions of the right of estoppel in Taiwan area of our country, and on the basis of this, it is revealed that the system is applicable to the legislative level and the scope of application. The term of application of the right of estoppel and the operator's obligation to inform should be used for reference. The fourth part, the perfect countermeasure of our country abrogation right. This part is the key part of the article, mainly focused on the second part. By drawing lessons from the legislative provisions of various countries and connecting with the actual conditions of China, this paper tries to widen the scope of application of the system of consumers' right to reverse regret, improve its requirements for exercising, and strengthen the obligation of informing operators. Make clear the legal responsibility of both sides and maintain the balance of interests of both sides, and put forward some perfect suggestions on the right of Chinese consumers to reverse their repentance.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：海南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D923.8

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張靖;;英國冷卻期制度的立法探究及啟示[J];長沙理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2011年03期

2 王洪亮;;消費(fèi)者撤回權(quán)的正當(dāng)性基礎(chǔ)[J];法學(xué);2010年12期

3 韓平;侯先鋒;;試論“后悔權(quán)”設(shè)立之法學(xué)證成[J];貴州警官職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年03期

4 陳小龍;;消費(fèi)者反悔機(jī)制的確立與權(quán)益保護(hù)[J];法制與社會(huì);2013年33期

5 楊立新;;修訂后的《消費(fèi)者權(quán)益保護(hù)法》經(jīng)營者民事責(zé)任之解讀[J];法律適用;2013年12期

6 楊立新;;非傳統(tǒng)銷售方式購買商品的消費(fèi)者反悔權(quán)及其適用[J];法學(xué);2014年02期

7 李銘;;論我國網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易消費(fèi)者反悔權(quán)法律制度的構(gòu)建[J];廣西廣播電視大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2013年04期

8 楊立新;;我國消費(fèi)者保護(hù)懲罰性賠償?shù)男掳l(fā)展[J];法學(xué)家;2014年02期

9 許馨予;董飛;;消費(fèi)者反悔權(quán)探析[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì);2014年14期

10 陳寶英;;關(guān)于《消費(fèi)者權(quán)益保護(hù)法》“反悔權(quán)”的立法分析[J];河南教育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2011年06期

，

本文編號(hào)：1958253