本文選題：消費(fèi)者合同　切入點(diǎn)：格式條款　出處：《西南政法大學(xué)》2016年碩士論文

【摘要】：在19世紀(jì),無論是大陸法系國(guó)家,還是英美法系國(guó)家,契約的觀念都深入人心,契約自由成為各國(guó)合同法普遍遵守的基本原則,19世紀(jì)因此被譽(yù)為“契約的世紀(jì)”。但隨著19世紀(jì)后期到來,社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)的迅速發(fā)展,合同雙方當(dāng)事人經(jīng)濟(jì)地位的差距日益懸殊,絕對(duì)的契約自由開始衰落。尤其是格式條款的廣泛采用,具有雄厚經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)力的大企業(yè)經(jīng)營(yíng)者對(duì)弱勢(shì)的消費(fèi)者契約自由的侵蝕,“合同自由大部分已經(jīng)成為幻影”。不僅如此,企業(yè)經(jīng)營(yíng)者也基于其在提供商品或服務(wù)的專業(yè)優(yōu)勢(shì),以格式條款的形式侵害消費(fèi)者的權(quán)益,而消費(fèi)者卻對(duì)此鮮有救濟(jì)的途徑與能力。對(duì)此,各國(guó)紛紛開始通過立法對(duì)“絕對(duì)的契約自由”加以限制,并通過行政管理等手段對(duì)合同內(nèi)容進(jìn)行監(jiān)督和管理。契約正義應(yīng)與契約自由同等重要,根據(jù)正義的要求,合同雙方當(dāng)事人都有權(quán)在訂立合同之時(shí)平等自由地表達(dá)自己的意愿,按誠(chéng)信原則之內(nèi)容,依契約之約定履行義務(wù),而不能將契約作為謀取自身不合理甚至非法利益的工具。例如,《德國(guó)民法典》專章對(duì)格式條款的定義、納入合同的規(guī)則以及對(duì)不公平格式條款的規(guī)制做出相應(yīng)的規(guī)定;日本專門制定《消費(fèi)者契約法》針對(duì)格式條款形成了以“民法基本原則為基礎(chǔ)的私法規(guī)制模式”的規(guī)制模式。20世紀(jì)90年代以來,日益增加的格式條款糾紛使得國(guó)內(nèi)立法者意識(shí)到規(guī)范格式條款的必要性,相繼出臺(tái)了《合同法》、《消費(fèi)者權(quán)益保護(hù)法》、《海商法》、《保險(xiǎn)法》等多部法律以及相關(guān)規(guī)定對(duì)格式條款作出了初步的規(guī)范。雖現(xiàn)行規(guī)定仍存在一定問題,但就規(guī)制格式條款而言還是發(fā)揮著重要的作用。本文主要的論述對(duì)象為消費(fèi)者合同中的不公平格式條款,將關(guān)于消費(fèi)者合同中的格式條款的內(nèi)容分為不公平判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、效力標(biāo)準(zhǔn)以及行政規(guī)制手段等五個(gè)部分,分別進(jìn)行論述。第一部分為消費(fèi)者合同中不公平格式條款的現(xiàn)狀及問題。簡(jiǎn)述了消費(fèi)者合同、消費(fèi)者、經(jīng)營(yíng)者等基本概念,以及一般不公平格式條款與消費(fèi)者合同中不公平格式條款的各自的特點(diǎn)及二者的區(qū)別。其次,簡(jiǎn)單地對(duì)消費(fèi)者合同中不公平格式條款的適用現(xiàn)狀進(jìn)行說明,并有針對(duì)性地分析了我國(guó)現(xiàn)行規(guī)定,從而發(fā)現(xiàn)現(xiàn)行法律規(guī)定并未對(duì)格式條款形成統(tǒng)一的規(guī)范及現(xiàn)行規(guī)定下關(guān)于消費(fèi)者合同中格式條款存在的問題。最后將現(xiàn)行規(guī)定下存在的問題從三個(gè)方面進(jìn)行闡述,即實(shí)體法問題、行政規(guī)制問題以及司法救濟(jì)問題。第二部分為消費(fèi)者合同中格式條款的不公平的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。該部分從比較法的角度,分別就德國(guó)法、英國(guó)法、日本法以及大陸規(guī)定和臺(tái)灣規(guī)定中有關(guān)格式條款不公平的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行了論述。德國(guó)《民法典》第307-309條列出“黑名單”、“灰名單”及原則性判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)作為格式條款不公平的判斷依據(jù);英國(guó)則以專門法案針對(duì)所有不公平條款作出了規(guī)定,這些規(guī)定同樣適用于格式條款的不公平判斷;日本《消費(fèi)者契約法》第8-10條規(guī)定消費(fèi)者契約中不公平格式條款的類型,這些不公平格式條款因其內(nèi)容造成合同雙方權(quán)利義務(wù)的重大失衡而效力被否定;我國(guó)臺(tái)灣地區(qū)“消費(fèi)者保護(hù)法”及配套的實(shí)施細(xì)則規(guī)定了不公平格式條款概念化、抽象性的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn),因此對(duì)格式條款不公平的判斷還需法官的裁量;而我國(guó)大陸地區(qū)主要規(guī)定了違反《合同法》第52、53條所具體規(guī)定的以及免除或限制經(jīng)營(yíng)者責(zé)任,抑或是加重消費(fèi)者義務(wù)等幾類不公平條款,但法律規(guī)定之間存在相沖突之處。第三部分為消費(fèi)者合同中不公平格式條款的效力判斷。對(duì)不公平格式條款的效力判斷需綜合考量合同類型、締約情形、雙方當(dāng)事人權(quán)利義務(wù)是否嚴(yán)重失衡等因素來進(jìn)行判斷�？筛鶕�(jù)效力類別將不公平格式條款的效力分為無效、可撤銷兩個(gè)部分,一般而言效力無效的不公平格式條款內(nèi)容違反法律強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定或存在造成消費(fèi)者重大利益受損的可能;效力可撤銷的不公平格式條款內(nèi)容的不公平程度并未達(dá)到嚴(yán)重不公平的程度或者可能因經(jīng)營(yíng)者未履行相應(yīng)的義務(wù)而導(dǎo)致法律效力被部分否定。第四部分為消費(fèi)者合同中不公平格式條款的行政規(guī)制。主要分為了納入與不納入審查、締約前的事先審核制度包括了格式條款的備案制度、聽證制度及公告制度;而雙方當(dāng)事人進(jìn)入對(duì)合同的履行階段,有關(guān)行政規(guī)制的手段主要是事后的行政處罰層面。我國(guó)尚未設(shè)置專門機(jī)構(gòu)處理格式條款的相關(guān)問題,而行政規(guī)定大多比較分散不集中,不利于消費(fèi)者的保護(hù),因此完善行政規(guī)制制度對(duì)消費(fèi)者的保護(hù)至關(guān)重要的。第五部分為消費(fèi)者合同中不公平格式條款的司法救濟(jì)。簡(jiǎn)單論述了當(dāng)受侵害的消費(fèi)者人數(shù)眾多時(shí),可向消費(fèi)者提供的司法救濟(jì)模式:集團(tuán)訴訟和公益訴訟。最新修訂的《民事訴訟法》中已明確公益訴訟的制度,但仍需進(jìn)一步公益訴訟作出規(guī)定;集團(tuán)訴訟尚無規(guī)定,但通過對(duì)集團(tuán)訴訟與代表人訴訟的對(duì)比,說明集團(tuán)訴訟針對(duì)侵害眾多消費(fèi)者的情形可能更有實(shí)際效果。
[Abstract]:In nineteenth Century, both continental law countries or the common law countries, the concept of the contract are popular, the freedom of contract has become the basic principle of contract law countries generally comply with the nineteenth Century, therefore known as the "contract of the century". But with the arrival of the late nineteenth Century, the rapid development of the social economy, the parties of the economic status of the growing gap the poor, absolute freedom of contract began to decline. Especially the widely used format terms, erosion of consumer freedom of contract for weak with strong economic strength of the business operators, "has become the most by the contract from the phantom". Moreover, operators of the enterprises based on the supply of goods or services, professional advantage, in terms of format the form of infringement of the rights of consumers, and consumers have little ability and ways of relief. In this regard, many countries began to pass legislation on the "vast To limit the freedom of contract ", and through administrative means of supervision and management of the contract. The contract justice should be equally important and the freedom of contract, according to the requirements of justice, the parties have the right to express their opinions freely equal to the time of contract, according to the content of the contract according to the principle of good faith. The agreed obligations, not to seek their own contract as unreasonable or illegal interests. For example, the definition of" German Civil Code > chapter on the format of the terms of the contract, into the rules and regulation on unfair terms of format and make the corresponding provisions; Japan specially formulated < consumer contract law > in terms of format form the mode of "private law" regulation is based on the basic principles of the civil law regulation mode of the.20 century since 90s, the terms of disputes increasing format makes the domestic legislators aware of rules The necessity of fan format terms, have issued a "contract law", "Consumer Protection Law > >, < < maritime law, insurance law > and other laws and relevant provisions of the terms of the format to make a preliminary specification. Although the current regulations there are still some problems, but the regulation of the standard clauses or play an important role. This paper discusses the main object for the form of unfair terms in consumer contracts, on the format of the terms in consumer contracts consists of unfair judgment standard, the five part of the effectiveness of standards and administrative regulation means, respectively. The first part discusses the status quo and problems for the form of unfair terms in consumer contracts. The consumer contract, the consumer, the basic concept of operators, and the general form of unfair terms in consumer contracts and unfair terms of format of their respective characteristics and two distinct. Second, to the application status of the form of unfair terms in consumer contracts are described, and analysis the current regulations of our country, so that the current law does not form a unified standard and the existing provisions of the terms of the format of existing consumer format clauses in the contract problems. Finally the existing provisions are the problem from three aspects, namely the problem of substantive law, administrative regulation and judicial relief. The second part is the format of the consumer contract provisions unfair judgment standard. This part from the angle of comparative law, respectively, the German law, English law, standard judgment about unfair terms and Japanese law Taiwan, regulations and regulations are discussed. The German Civil Code > < article 307-309 lists the "black list", "grey list" and the principle of judging standard as the format clause On the basis of fair judgment; Britain is dedicated to act against all unfair terms provisions, these Provisions shall apply to the format of the terms of unfair judgments; Japanese consumer contract law > < clause 8-10 types of unfair terms of format consumer contracts, a major imbalance in these unfair terms of format contract caused by the rights and obligations of both parties the content validity was negative; Taiwan region of China's "consumer protection law" and supporting the implementation rules of the unfair terms of format concept, judgment standard abstract and so on unfair terms needed to determine the discretion of the judge; and in mainland China mainly a violation of the provisions of the contract law. > section 52,53 of specific provisions and exempt or limit the responsibility of the operator or the obligation to increase consumer and other types of unfair terms, but there is conflict between the provisions of the law The third part for the effectiveness of judgment. Form of unfair terms in consumer contracts. The effectiveness of unfair terms of format judgment to consider the types of contracts parties, rights and obligations of both parties concerned are serious imbalance and other factors to determine the effectiveness. According to the categories will be unfair form clause validity is invalid, revocable two a part of unfair terms of format content in general effectiveness in violation of mandatory provisions of the law or the existence of the interests of consumers may cause significant damage; unfair degree of validity of unfair terms of format content can be revoked did not reach serious degree of unfair or may cause the operator does not fulfill the corresponding obligation to legal effect is negative. The fourth part is the administrative regulation form of unfair terms in consumer contracts. The main points for inclusion and not included in the review before the party Prior approval system includes the filing system of format terms, hearing system and announcement system; and the parties to enter the stage of the contract, the relevant administrative regulation is the main means of administrative punishment level. Relevant issues in China has not yet set up specialized agencies to deal with the terms of the format, and administrative regulations mostly scattered, is not conducive to the protection of consumers, it is very important to the protection of consumers to improve the system of administrative regulation. The fifth part is the form of unfair terms in consumer contracts. Simply discusses the judicial remedy when the number of consumers affected many, judicial relief mode can offer the consumer group litigation and public interest litigation. Public interest litigation has been clear about the civil procedure law the latest revision of < > in the system, but still need to be further defined public interest litigation; group litigation is not regulated, but through the group v. The contrast between the lawsuit and the representative's lawsuit suggests that the group action may have more practical effects on the situation that infringes on many consumers.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：D923.8;D923.6

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 馬齊林;關(guān)于完善我國(guó)格式條款合同制度的思考[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2000年02期

2 杜軍;格式條款研究[J];西南民族學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2000年05期

3 張經(jīng);加強(qiáng)格式條款監(jiān)督 工商再設(shè)消保屏障 格式條款監(jiān)督條例實(shí)施意義析[J];工商行政管理;2000年19期

4 王利民;對(duì)合同格式條款的三種監(jiān)管模式[J];工商行政管理;2000年19期

5 張經(jīng);境外法律有關(guān)格式條款的表述[J];工商行政管理;2000年19期

6 胡惠英;略論格式條款的幾個(gè)問題[J];河北法學(xué);2000年03期

7 ;上海市合同格式條款監(jiān)督條例[J];新法規(guī)月刊;2000年09期

8 黃積虹;論格式條款的利用與限制[J];學(xué)術(shù)探索;2000年06期

9 傅健;略論格式條款提供方的法定義務(wù)[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2001年04期

10 段逸超;格式條款例析[J];律師世界;2001年07期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前8條

1 樓國(guó)華;;淺議格式條款[A];中國(guó)合同法論壇論文匯編[C];2010年

2 陳霞;郝勝林;;關(guān)于格式條款效力的思考[A];中國(guó)民商法實(shí)務(wù)論壇論文集[C];2004年

3 黃瑜;;格式條款的缺陷與法律規(guī)制[A];當(dāng)代法學(xué)論壇（2007年第3輯）[C];2007年

4 李明桓;;仲裁案件時(shí)格式條款的運(yùn)用[A];中國(guó)仲裁與司法論壇暨2010年年會(huì)論文集[C];2010年

5 賈玉平;張毅;;快遞服務(wù)運(yùn)單格式條款研究[A];2011’中國(guó)快遞論壇論文集[C];2011年

6 趙萍;邵萬權(quán);;淺析房屋銷售,租賃合同糾紛中所涉格式條款的舉證責(zé)任分配[A];中國(guó)民商法實(shí)務(wù)論壇論文集[C];2002年

7 吳清旺;;商品房預(yù)售合同格式條款之民法規(guī)制[A];第四屆中國(guó)律師論壇百篇優(yōu)秀論文集[C];2004年

8 方剛成;;試論對(duì)保險(xiǎn)格式條款的規(guī)制——以《保險(xiǎn)法》司法解釋(二)第九條和第十七條為重點(diǎn)[A];浙江省2013年保險(xiǎn)法學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)論文集[C];2013年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 高翔;對(duì)格式條款的理解[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2005年

2 王春暉 山西移動(dòng)公司首席法律顧問 博士;電信格式條款的法律規(guī)制[N];人民郵電;2003年

3 本報(bào)記者 王慶武;“不平等格式條款”消除步履維艱[N];消費(fèi)日?qǐng)?bào);2005年

4 本版編輯邋李思 李燕;格式條款被判無效 批發(fā)市場(chǎng)返還租金[N];中國(guó)企業(yè)報(bào);2007年

5 王們;完善“格式條款”定義之我見[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2006年

6 河南省漯河市郾城區(qū)人民法院 劉元敏;該案格式條款如何認(rèn)定[N];人民法院報(bào);2009年

7 本報(bào)記者 葉尤剛;欺人合同行不通了[N];中國(guó)工商報(bào);2000年

8 本報(bào)實(shí)習(xí)生 王建新;“春運(yùn)”漲價(jià)沖撞格式條款[N];中國(guó)質(zhì)量報(bào);2001年

9 王惜純;挑戰(zhàn)不平等格式條款 六省市消協(xié)在京發(fā)布點(diǎn)評(píng)意見[N];中國(guó)質(zhì)量報(bào);2004年

10 潮言;山西工商合同格式條款監(jiān)管初見成效[N];中國(guó)工商報(bào);2009年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 彭丹丹;對(duì)格式條款的審視[D];貴州大學(xué);2007年

2 王麗美;格式條款利弊分析及其綜合規(guī)制[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2008年

3 鄭智強(qiáng);格式條款研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2009年

4 付茹;論格式條款的立法調(diào)整[D];山東大學(xué);2009年

5 厲文清;格式條款三論[D];煙臺(tái)大學(xué);2009年

6 馬兵務(wù);格式條款研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2010年

7 李益;網(wǎng)店經(jīng)營(yíng)中的格式條款問題[D];蘭州大學(xué);2010年

8 王剛;論格式條款的規(guī)制[D];河北大學(xué);2010年

9 孟蝶;格式條款解釋研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2010年

10 梁卡特;論格式條款及其效力[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號(hào)：1654284