窜货的法律规制

Regulation on Franchise Encroachment

作为一种常见的商业行为,司法实践中因纵向限制引发的窜货争议数以千记。多数法院均依据合同自由原则认定窜货经销商违约,少数法院从显失公平、格式条款角度否认反窜货约定的法律效力、判决窜货经销商无需担责,也有个别法院认为窜货构成不正当竞争,只有两个法院探讨了《反垄断法》第14条且最终拒绝适用。关于窜货,司法的不一致既与《反垄断法》对纵向非价格限制案件司法适用的严格控制有关,更与纵向非价格限制竞争效应的复杂性有关。窜货行为原则上不应被认定为不正当竞争,但经销协议的合同约束力亦需尊重。为鼓励企业投资、促进商业经营的可持续发展,不宜从纵向垄断协议角度审查反窜货约定,但可强化对反窜货约定是否属于横向垄断协议或滥用市场支配地位进行反垄断审查,以防严重限制、排除市场竞争。

Thousands of cases about franchise encroachment have been settled these years. Principle of freedom of contract is usualy used for distribution agreement dispute. Most Courts emphasize that both parties should comply with the vertical nonprice restraints. A few courts identify vertical nonprice re- straints as invalid clause which is unconscionablity or standard term. However, very few courts sentence that franchise encroachment constitutes unfair competition. Only two courts discuss the application of ar- ticle 14 of Anti--monopoly Law of the People＇s Republic of China（hereafter is AMLC）.The complexity of competive effect of vertical non--price restraints leads to the divergences of judgments. Moreover, the vagueness of article 14 of AMLC aggravates the controversy. Nevertheless,it is not necessary to amend the AMLC. Both article 13 and article 17 of AMLC are applieahle to franchise encroachment dispute