网购中消费者合同格式条款无效的认定——以“双十一”天猫预售规则中的定金格式条款为例
|
摘要
电子商务合同中存在着大量的格式条款,因其高效、便捷的特点而得到普遍的应用,但同时也成为了商家侵害消费者权益的源头之一。参照《消费者权益保护法》上"七日无理由退货权"的制度设计理念,将定金罚则引入网购格式合同具备正当性基础。围绕《合同法》第39条的规定,从形式上说,格式合同的提供者未尽到合理的提示义务,消费者事先未充分理解条款全部内容即提交订单,应认定该格式条款未订入合同;从内容上说,该格式条款中部分内容违反公平原则,应认定为可变更、可撤销,部分内容与法律强制性规定发生冲突,应归于无效。
There are a large number of format clauses in e-commerce contracts, which have been widely used due to their high efficiency and convenience. However, they have also become one of the sources of merchants' infringement of consumer rights. Referring to the system design concept of "no reason to return in 7 days" in the Consumer Rights Protection Law, the penalty regulations cite into the online shopping format contract that has a justification basis.According to the provisions of Article 39 of the Contract Law, formally, the provider of the format contract has not fulfilled the reasonable obligation of prompting, and the consumer has not fully understood the contents before submitting the order, and the format clause should be determined not to be entered. According to the content, some of the format clause violate the fairness principle, and should be deemed to be changeable and revocable;some conflict with the mandatory provisions of the law, and should be invalidated.
There are a large number of format clauses in e-commerce contracts, which have been widely used due to their high efficiency and convenience. However, they have also become one of the sources of merchants' infringement of consumer rights. Referring to the system design concept of "no reason to return in 7 days" in the Consumer Rights Protection Law, the penalty regulations cite into the online shopping format contract that has a justification basis.According to the provisions of Article 39 of the Contract Law, formally, the provider of the format contract has not fulfilled the reasonable obligation of prompting, and the consumer has not fully understood the contents before submitting the order, and the format clause should be determined not to be entered. According to the content, some of the format clause violate the fairness principle, and should be deemed to be changeable and revocable;some conflict with the mandatory provisions of the law, and should be invalidated.
引文
[1]梁慧星.统一合同法:成功与不足[J].中国法学,1999,(3).
[2]崔建远.合同法学[M].北京:法律出版社,2015.
[3]王利明.合同法研究(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2015.
[4]王泽鉴.债法原理(第一册)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2011.
[5][德]莱因哈德·齐默曼著,韩光明译.德国新债法:历史与比较的视角[M].北京:法律出版社,2012.
[6]张建军.格式合同的司法规制研究[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2014.
[7]张良.论消费者合同中格式条款的内容控制[J].河南大学学报(社会科学版),2016,(4).
[8]韩从容.论格式合同的价值冲突与利益平衡机制[J].现代法学,2000,(6).
(1)2017年《中华人民共和国民法总则》第150条:“一方或者第三人以胁迫手段,使对方在违背真实意思的情况下实施的民事法律行为,受胁迫方有权请求人民法院或者仲裁机构予以撤销。”
[2]崔建远.合同法学[M].北京:法律出版社,2015.
[3]王利明.合同法研究(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2015.
[4]王泽鉴.债法原理(第一册)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2011.
[5][德]莱因哈德·齐默曼著,韩光明译.德国新债法:历史与比较的视角[M].北京:法律出版社,2012.
[6]张建军.格式合同的司法规制研究[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2014.
[7]张良.论消费者合同中格式条款的内容控制[J].河南大学学报(社会科学版),2016,(4).
[8]韩从容.论格式合同的价值冲突与利益平衡机制[J].现代法学,2000,(6).
(1)2017年《中华人民共和国民法总则》第150条:“一方或者第三人以胁迫手段,使对方在违背真实意思的情况下实施的民事法律行为,受胁迫方有权请求人民法院或者仲裁机构予以撤销。”