Study On The Inversion Of Burden Of Proof In The Case Of Consumer Rights Protection

In China,the protection of the rights and interests of consumers,The relief rules of substantive law level have been gradually improved,but the procedural law has not been followed up.In the field of consumer rights in China,human rights cases and more difficult coexist.Based on the general principles of the distribution of burden of proof,as the consumer side it is difficult to bear the burden of proof,the proof of evidence has become the main reason for the failure of consumers.From the protection of consumer rights and interests of the substantive requirements and the pursuit of value,in order to balance the burden of proof of the parties,and to solve the difficult situation of consumer evidence difficult,need to improve the distribution of burden of proof in consumer rights cases,through the establishment of the burden of proof system,The fact that some consumers can not prove is proved by the other party in a negative form,in order to balance the burden of proof to share,to achieve the substantive and impartial of the law.Consumer rights cases or involving product liability disputes or involving contract disputes.Consumer rights cases inversion of the burden of proof is based on the premise of the premise of the distribution of the burden of proof of the general principles as a prerequisite.The nature of the dispute and the principle of imputation have a decisive role in the specific burden of the burden of proof,which is essential to ensure the stability of the burden of proof in the judicial practice.However,in the product liability system,the responsibility for product liability and product defects is not clearly defined,so that there is a different understanding of the nature of product liability,leading to confusion in the distribution of burden of proof.The formulation of the principle of attribution of product liability is too vague and general,and therefore tends to be ambiguous in judicial practice.In the case of specific burden of proof,there is only a requirement that the producer's inversion of the burden of proof of the product defect.For the same strict implementation of the seller is the product defects in the implementation of the burden of proof is not specified.Infringement disputes in the fact that the causal relationship between the implementation of the burden of proof and other legislation does not make special provisions.Inversion of the burden of proof mainly occurs in the field of infringement,the contract field has little burden of proof.The burden of proof of contract dispute in consumer rights protection is set up in the newly revised "Consumer Law" to reverse the burden of proof of defective goods or services within six months.It is regrettable that the scope of application of the burden of proof is limited and the applicable period is limited to the occurrence of defects within six months from the date of acceptance of the goods or services.Because the legislation is not clear about the burden of proof of consumer rights cases,and the imperfection of the burden of proof of the burden of proof,leading to the arbitrary tendency of the burden of proof in judicial practice,the same type of consumer rights case,the results are not the same,Contrary to the "similar case should be similar to deal with" the principle of justice.Refine the problem in order to think about the consummation of the burden of proof of consumer rights cases.Taking into account the legal value of the specific system has a stable guiding significance and specific factors for the impact of specific systems,so from the substantive law,judicial interpretation,jurisprudence,the parties agreed to improve China's consumer rights cases inversion system.First of all,in the form of legislation to set the burden of proof of the basic rules.Product liability,clarify the nature of the product liability and the burden of proof of the burden of sharing,clear the object of the inverted;defect liability,the appropriate expansion of the rules applicable to the scope of evidence to determine a reasonable rule of proof of the application of the deadline.Second,the burden of proof inversion rules to apply to the standardization of justice.Strictly limit the application of the burden of proof in the judicial application of the conditions;flexible use of the presumption of fact.Finally,allow the parties to agree on some of the facts of the burden of proof of the rules.