Reflection And Reconstruction On The Obligation Of The Third Party Provider Of The Network Food Trade

The “Internet+” era of online food transactions is booming,reflecting the huge advantages of high efficiency and convenience,and inevitably reveals the drawbacks of food safety supervision.In order to standardize the online food trading market,the new Food Safety Law was promulgated in 2015,and the legal concept of “the third-party platform provider of online food transactions” was officially proposed for the first time.The law provides partial obligations of online food safety supervision to third-party platforms.However,the performance of the obligation is deviated from the design goals of the legislator,resulting in a downward obligation,or because the legal provisions are too crude to be incapable,or simply because there is a legislative gap.Therefore,this article discusses the legal concept and legal status of the third-party platform providers of online food transactions with the provisions of Articles 62 and 131 of the Food Safety Law.The rationality and obligation of the third-party platform provider of food transaction are reflected in the legal responsibility after performance,and analyze the different views of the theoretical circles and the shortcomings of the current legislation,and attempts to propose reconstruction are proposed.This article is divided into three chapters besides the introduction and conclusion:The first chapter,"The rationality of online food trading obligations of third-party platform suppliers." Internet food transactions have the usual attributes of public goods,and the supervision by the administrative supervision department is the meaning of the title.However,why is the administrative regulatory authority “imposing” some of its regulatory obligations on third-party platform providers? Is this obligation inherently reasonable? The author examines its theoretical basis from a static perspective,analyzes its institutional antecedents from a dynamic perspective,and examines its rationality from the perspective of judicial practice.Through combing,it is found that the setting of the obligations of the third-party platform providers has the possibility of applying the corresponding theoretical biases,and only stipulates the punitive measures for the obligations of the third-party platform providers,and does not set corresponding incentives;It is stipulated that the legal status and legal concept of third-party platform providers have not been clearly defined;because the obligations of third-party platform providers are not clear,the judicial practice has different judgments on the types of cases of third-party platform provider liability litigation.Chapter 2,“Legislative Review of the Obligations of Third-Party Platform Providers of Internet Food Trading”.Through reflection on the internal motivational influence of the third-party platform provider's obligations and the external system design,many problems were found: insufficient internal incentives for obligation fulfillment,unclear external system regulations,and “real-name registration” and “examination license” beforehand.In the event,the boundaries between the “illegal report” and the “stopping service” obligations are vague,and the performance of the “faithful notification” obligation afterwards is lacking in effectiveness.In addition,the supply of legal obligations exceeds the actual ability of third-party platform providers.When the third-party platform provider fails to fully fulfill the “real-name registration” obligation,the legal liability applies to the competition,and the third-party platform provider needs to bear after the obligation is fulfilled.There is no clear definition of punitive damages and the amount and method of recovery after advance payment.The third chapter,"Reconstruction and improvement of the obligations of third-party platform providers of online food transactions." This part corresponds to the problems reflected in the second chapter,and proposes improvement ideas one by one.Firstly,the application of relevant theories should be comprehensive and not biased.The system design insists on the coexistence of punishment and incentives,and defines the nature of the third party platform provider as a new type.Transaction intermediary.Secondly,the construction of legal obligations must be certain.The third-party platform providers only undertake the formal review and access review obligations,and do not need to undertake the voluntary review obligation.The validity of the contact information is guaranteed by signing the legal dispute address confirmation.Furthermore,the legal liability applies the insistence on matching,repairs the “real name registration” obligation,and assigns responsibility after performance,and clarifies that the scope of application of legal liability does not include punitive damages and full compensation rights after advance payment.Finally,explore the construction of a new model of cooperative governance and implement the concept of pluralistic governance.