Reconsideration Of Punitive Damages In The Case Of Purchasing Counterfeit Products On Purpose

The "Consumer Rights and interests Protection Law"(hereinafter referred to as "the Consumer Rights and interests Protection Law"),the "Food Safety Law",the "Tort liability Law" and the "provisions on certain legal issues applicable to the trial of Food and Drug disputes"(hereinafter referred to as "the provisions")all provide for the punitive damages system.The purpose is to protect consumers in a weak position,punish illegal traders,and maintain the socialist market economic order.It is through punitive damages that counterfeiters seek certain economic benefits.The act of buying,using and receiving services while knowing that the goods about to be purchased and used are fake.With regard to the question of whether the punitive damages system is applicable to the purchase of fake goods,at present only Article 3 of the "provisions" explicitly stipulates that disputes arise over the quality of food and drugs,and buyers claim their rights and producers against producers and sellers.The people's court shall not support the seller's defense that the buyer still buys the food and medicine because of the quality problem.This article explicitly affirms the application of punitive damages in the field of food and medicine.But for food,There is no clear regulation on the application of punitive damages in the case of counterfeit buying or false purchase of counterfeit drugs.This article discusses the problem of whether or not the punitive compensation system is applicable to knowledge and counterfeit purchase from the field of food and medicine.In judicial practice,different courts have different opinions on the situation of knowing fake and buying fake in the field of food and medicine.Some courts have affirmed that the system of punitive damages should be applied to the purchase of fake goods,and some courts have denied that the system of punitive damages should be applied to the purchase of fake goods.The Chongqing higher people's Court,in its answer to some questions concerning the trial of disputes over the protection of consumers' rights and interests,found that the application of punitive damages to the purchase of fake goods violated the principle of good faith,thus negating the application of punitive damages to the purchase of fake goods.Unless otherwise provided for in laws,administrative regulations,and judicial interpretations.There are three points of view: yes,no,and compromise.The scholars who hold a positive view hold that the consumers who know the fake and buy the fake belong to the consumers protected by the Consumer Law,and the consumption of life is an objective judgment,and the subjective motivation of the purchaser should not be taken as the criterion of consideration.As long as the operator has carried out a specific fraud,it constitutes fraud.The system of punitive damages should be applied.The scholars whohold the opposing view think that the buyer's purchase behavior is profit-making,which is far from the definition of living consumption.If the operator commits a fraudulent act,it can only indicate that the operator is fraudulent and does not constitute fraud.It negates the application of the punitive damages system.Scholars who hold a compromise point of view believe that it is impossible to generalize whether punitive damages are applicable to the purchase of fake products.Professional fraud companies are "professional teams" with a profitable nature,which naturally do not conform to the purpose of daily consumption and are not suitable for individual consumers.The act of knowing and buying fake goods should be protected by the law.It is considered that neither individual consumers nor professional counterfeiters should apply the punitive damages system in the case of knowing the fake and buying fake.First of all,people who buy fake goods do not fall within the scope of living consumption defined by consumers protected by the Consumer Law.They buy goods for profit,which is different from that of financial consumers.The economic benefit obtained by financial consumers is the added value attribute of the product itself,but what the financial consumers obtain is punitive damages,not the value added function of the product itself.In addition,although the operator has fraud,it does not meet the constitutive requirements of fraud,and there is no relative person because of one side.A false understanding of the fraudulent behavior of a person,resulting in an expression of intent that is not in line with the true idea.Finally,the behavior of false buying violates the principle of estoppel,the principle of good faith,the principle of prohibiting abuse of rights,and the violation of the public interest,which is inconsistent with the exemption of defective guarantee from liability.Will bring a series of social hazards,moral hazard.It is suggested that punitive damages should not be applied to the behavior of forgery purchase in the field of food and medicine,and that the relevant legislation should be further improved,and that a reporting incentive system and a system of transfer of claim rights should be set up.Strengthening the supervision and punishment of fake operators and other methods to achieve a certain purpose of cracking down on counterfeiting,and setting up a social access system for professional counterfeiters in order to safeguard the interests of consumers and punish illegal traders with more reasonable and effective methods.Build a harmonious and fair market environment.