| The right of revocation by consumers is a newly developed civil right in a relatively mature market economy environment and plays animportant role in protecting consumer rights and interests. Many scholars treat this right as it has broken the “pacta sunt servanda” principle of traditional contract law,which leads to many discussions in reform of the German law of obligationsunder the harmonisation between European Union directives and domestic law, and also in China’s consumer protection law amendment. This right is also seen in “Consumer Protection Law” of Taiwan China and some problems have been exposed during its practice and exercise, making it now under the amendment procedure by “Legislative Yuan”.Viewing historically, the consumer protection standard of China has fallen far behind the western developed countries. Since March 15, 2014, the newly revised Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests has come into force and it has provided us with new materials for study from the law itself to the reactions of business participants.This thesis is to research on the basic theory of this right by making a comparision of detailed regulations originated from this kind of right and measures taken by the sellers in response to this right both foreign and domestic, and to further analyse the conditions and terms for using and the develop direction of this right. It will also focus on the problems happened in the real word and give evaluations of China’s latest legislation on this field. The first part of this thesis will try to definite this right as the scholars use different names to refer to this right which means there are different understandings behind it. The german jurist use “right of withdraw” while they treat it as a right to withdraw the declaration of will. The lawmakers of Taiwan, China describe it as a right to cancel a contract in its Consumer Protection Law. The Chinese law uses “return of goods” and makes it a non-reason right of return. The writer agrees with the saying of “right of revocation” used by some scholars because the foresaid “withdraw” and “cancel” are not consist with their definitions in China’s Contract Law. Also, “return of goods” has set a limit of scope for exercising this right. Besides, the word “revocation” has its unique advantage.The following part will give a discussion of the conditions and terms for using this right, including the positive and negative scope. It will begin from two aspects. One is from the method of trading, e.g. face-to-face purchase or distance sale, and the other is type of goods, depending on whether it is virtual, intellectual or Internet downloadable. All these different conditions may lead to different effects for exercising this right.Part three will focus on the problems and disputes currently shown in China’s practise. The main divergence is whehter online auction and consignment-purchase should be given the right of revocation under Article 25. As consignment-purchase is a new form of online sales and there’re also many types of consignment-purchase, which could lead to different results. The online auction is also very popular in China, even some courts make cooperations with Taobao to make judical auction through Internet. And then it turns to the cheat problem happened not in China, but also in many developed countries. So it has become a serious question to handle the misuse of right. A proposal of building “Net Credit System” is raised in order to find a solution.The last part is the conclusion, it will summarize the thesis in clear and brief words. |
PDF Full Text Request