On The System Of Punitive Damages In Consumer Protection Law

Punitive damages system usually used in criminal law or administrative law in China, but we bravely violate the tradition principle, damages for compensation, and introduce punitive damages system in’Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests’Punitive damages system was first regulated in 1993.We can read it in the article 49 of’Law of the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests’(hereinafter referred as’Law of the Protection of Consumer’).In order to protect consumers rights and interests more effectively,’Law of the Protection of Consumer’revised in 2013,we can read the punitive damages system in article 55 of the revised version, which enlarge the scope of application, enhance the magnitude of the punitive damages and also embody legislation value preferring to consumers. With the social development and emergence of new commodities, there have been new disputes in the consumption field, for instance, if gifts are commodities, if sales of renovated cars are applicable to the punitive compensation system, if units are consumers, how to understand fraud, etc.Ideas are analyzed by combining the Law of the PRC on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of Consumers (hereinafter referred to as the Consumer Protection Laws) of related places in China and relatively typical cases in the consumption field. As far as I am concerned, operators usually attract consumers to purchase commodities by presenting free gifts, but the value of gifts has already been included. Therefore, it should also be commodities, which is reflected in most local consumer protection laws, such as Shanghai Consumer Protection Regulations, Sichuan Consumer Protection Regulations, etc. As for the "sales of renovated cars", the plaintiff of Wenzhou Land Rover "returning-one-and-compensating-three" case won the lawsuit in the first trial, and the dealer compensated three times of car purchasing amount according to the 55th article of Consumer Protection Laws, suggesting that "sales of renovated cars" has already been identified as frauds committed by operators. If units are consumers has always been a disputing question in the academic circle. The mainstream view is that units are not consumers, but as far as I am concerned, the purchasing behavior can be distinguished, to see if it is living consumption or production consumption. If it is living consumption, its consumer identity should be admitted. As for the affirmation of "fraud", it can be understood by referring to Heilongjiang Consumer Protection Laws. Besides the above mentioned disputes, views about if consumers "buy fake products on purpose" are expressed. Although consumers have already reached a consensus on "buying fake products on purpose" in judicial practices, it is considered that the consumer identity should be denied explicitly in the Consumer Protection Laws by starting from the principle of honesty and credibility. In addition, three times of compensation according to the stipulation on the punitive compensation system is too inflexible, and there should be a boundary, so that the court can exert the discretion sufficiently during the case proceedings. Of course, problems in the consumption field cannot be summarized in a few words, and I have just expressed my opinions on some mostly disputing problems.In brief, through researching punitive damages system of China for perfecting it in’Law of the Protection of Consumer’, I believe some of the related opinions were put forward in this essay can be good reference for legislators to regulate’Law of the Protection of Consumer’in the future and try to make contribution to’Law of the Protection of Consumer’of China.