Research On E-trade Platform Providers' Statutory Liabilities Of Compensation In Advance

Data,users and information transmission are concentrated in network platforms,which are major organizational forms of Internet economy and lead the development of Internet economy.Clarifying responsibilities of network platforms is the key to consummating governance of network platforms and the guarantee of well-developed Internet economy.In the field of network transaction,article 44(1)of the Law of the PRC on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of Consumers stipulated E-trade platform providers' statutory liabilities of compensation in advance.It means that E-trade platform providers bear untrue joint compensation obligation which are responsible for business operators' torts,and bear responsibilities of general suretyships which are responsible for business operators' non-performance.The legitimacy of E-trade platform providers bearing untrue joint compensation obligation is that they open network transaction and commit the transaction security obligations.When E-trade platform providers commit such duty of care,their defaults on informing obligation will be erring,and their nonfeasance causes the legitimate rights and interests of consumers being indirectly infringed.And the legitimacy of E-trade platform providers bearing responsibilities of general suretyships is legal fiction.It means that E-trade platform providers' guarantees of E-trade business operators' lawful business are regarded as commitments of bearing responsibilities of general suretyships.E-trade platform providers' statutory liabilities of compensation in advance are expanded in contract liabilities,for purpose of breaking the limitation,because popular theory says that E-trade platform providers' statutory liabilities of compensation in advance are just torts.It can fulfil extensive consumers' requirements of E-trade platform providers bearing statutory liabilities of compensation in advance,which are responsible for business operators' non-performance,and protect E-trade consumers who act as disadvantaged groups,in order to realize distributive justice.Now the liability exemption condition of E-trade platform providers' statutory liabilities of compensation in advance is that E-trade platform providers fulfil informing obligation,in other words,they must provide business operators' true names,addresses and effective contact information.By means of empirical research we can see that judges always lower the standards of the liability exemption condition and make extensive interpretation of exemptions,for example,they just require E-trade platform providers to provide some business operators' information which can confirm business operators' identities,and platform providers don't need to ensure validity of business operators' information.If E-trade platform providers know nothing about changes of business operators' information,they will be exempted.Even some judges don't analyse whether E-trade platform providers fulfil their informing obligation,and they judge platform providers' exemption because they think E-trade platform providers' legal status is neutral.These justice views lead to the result that E-trade platform providers scarcely take statutory liabilities of compensation in advance,so actually the justice departs from the legislation.Why the Law of the PRC on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of Consumers can't play an important role in the protection of the rights and interests of consumers,on the contrary,these regulations become E-trade platform providers' refuges.Above phenomenon is related to legislators' and judges' different value standpoints.Legislators attach importance to the protection of the rights and interests of consumers,so they expect to make E-trade platform providers compensate in advance so as to ensure that E-trade consumers get compensation in time through legislation.While judges have path dependence on safe harbour rules,and they always presuppose that E-trade platform providers are neutral.Judges pay no attention to E-trade platform providers playing a transaction promoted role in E-trade,which recommend products and service via advertising and selling search link ranking.And judges were influenced by professional extortioners for fraud fighting,who utilize this regulation to make profit,so judges tend to protect E-trade platform providers from shouldering this responsibility.In my opinion,when judges determine the liability exemption condition of E-trade platform providers' statutory liabilities of compensation in advance,they can consider the result of consumers' safeguard of legal rights as an important factor.In this way,judges' freedom for judgment will be limited,and to some extent,the judicial application may return to the legislative intent.The tension between judicature and legislation can be remitted,so that the legislative intent will come true,which means E-trade consumers' legal rights and interests should be protected and E-trade platform providers' governance should be improved.The innovation points of this paper are as follows.Firstly,points of this paper break through the popular theory,which says that E-trade platform providers' statutory liabilities of compensation in advance are just torts,and reveal these liabilities also means that E-trade platform providers bear responsibilities of general suretyships which are responsible for business operators' non-performance,in order to fulfil extensive actual requirements in E-trade and juridical practice.Secondly,by means of empirical research,the judicial determination of these statutory liabilities is investigated.I do my best to accurately describe judicial realities,for the purpose of providing empirical materials for research on E-trade platform providers' civil liabilities.Thirdly,this paper reveals the strain between the judicial application and the legislation of E-trade platform providers' statutory liabilities of compensation in advance,and deeply analyse reasons of this situation.On this basis,I propose some solutions to remit this strain,both in judicial and legislative methods,so as to change the present situation,make the judicial application return to the legislative intent and protect E-trade consumers' legal rights and interests more effectively.