The Research On Private Law Solution Of The Defective Product Injures Itself

Article 41 of the Tort Liability Law includes the damage of defective products themselves,and the victim may obtain compensation under the tort law path rather than the traditional contract law path,which is continued by Article 1202 of the Civil Code.The above provision differs from Article 41 of the Product Quality Law,which explicitly excludes tort law remedies for damage to defective products themselves.The legislative ambiguity has led to controversial understanding of the above provisions in our academic circles,resulting in the formation of their own doctrines.China’s own damage in defective products in the relief of the above legislation,doctrinal controversy,it is necessary to unify the principles and standards of the relief of their own damage.From the nature of the defective product’s own damage,it should be remedied by the contract law as a performance benefit.However,the contract law remedy is subject to the principle of contractual relativity and the principle of competing liability.According to the principle of contract relativity,the premise of obtaining damages for breach of contract is that there must be a contractual relationship between the parties,and China’s competing liability rules may lead to difficulties for the buyer of defective products to obtain full compensation,so the contract law remedy path is inadequate.Tort law remedy path can solve the above disadvantages,allowing the tort law to protect the defective product itself damage is of great significance to overcome the shortcomings of the contract law remedy,but also conducive to the realization of the tort law to fill the damage function,so as to fully protect the civil rights of the buyer of the product.The common practice of judicial decisions in China is to "bypass" the dispute of the defective product’s own damage,directly to the defective product’s own damage to provide tort law remedies,so the tort law remedy path can meet the needs of judicial practice.Other countries,to varying degrees,allow defective products to obtain remedies through tort law also confirms that this path has certain advantages in its application.However,in the context of tort law,the defective product itself is a pure economic loss,in principle,not subject to tort law remedies,which is a problem that must be resolved.In view of the advantages and disadvantages of both contract law and tort law,the author attempts to provide complete relief for the buyer through the remedy of cooperation between the two paths.The difficulty of cooperating with the remedy is that once the tort law remedy path is overextended,it will lead to the danger of confusing the boundary between contract law and tort law.To address this issue,it is necessary to clearly delineate the scope of application of the two remedies,and to clearly define which remedy is available for which defective product’s own damages.In the case of product defects that lead to both product damage and other personal and property damage can be remedied by the tort law path,for the deficiency caused by the pure economic loss rule,it can be considered that the product defect infringes on the property right rather than the object to which the property right refers.The remedy by the path of contract law is the situation that only causes the defective product’s own damage.