论消费者保护法上的履行欺诈

On Fraud in Performance in Consumer Protection Law

《消费者权益保护法》第55条第1款的现有研究主要围绕缔约欺诈展开,而忽视了履行欺诈。缔约欺诈涉及合同效力判断,由意思表示瑕疵制度处理;履行欺诈则属合同义务违反,由违约责任处理。但在涉及消费合同时,常规违约救济对履行欺诈行为并无遏制作用。基于保护消费者的目的,履行欺诈亦应属消法所规制的欺诈行为。在履行欺诈情形下,退还价款、货物更换、损害赔偿与惩罚性赔偿等救济的处理均具有独特性。司法实务往往将履行欺诈与缔约欺诈、瑕疵给付、告知义务违反相混淆,导致法律适用错误。本文结合2014—2020年高级人民法院与最高人民法院所审理的汽车买卖纠纷案的全样本分析,对消法领域的履行欺诈问题展开详细论述。此外,通过区分两类欺诈,在教义学框架内即可完满处理“知假买假”问题,而无须诉诸外部体系。

The existing research of Article 55,paragraph 1 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law focuses on fraud inducing contracts while neglecting fraud in performance.Fraud inducing contract involves the judgment of contract effectiveness,which is handled by the defect of declaration;fraud in performance is a breach of contract,which is handled by the liability for contract breaching.However,when it comes to consumer contracts,conventional remedies for breach of contract have no deterrent effect on the fraud in performance.For the purpose of consumer protection,fraud in performance should also be regulated by consumer protection law.In the case of fraud in performance,the treatment of remedies such as restitution,replacement of goods,damages,and punitive damages are unique.In judicial practice,fraud in performance is often confused with fraud inducing contracts,defective performance,and violation of notification obligation,which leads to errors in the application of law.Based on analyzing of the whole sample of automobile sales cases heard by the Higher People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Court from 2014 to 2020,this paper discusses in detail the fraud in performance in the field of consumer law.In addition,by distinguishing two types of fraud,the issue of“intentional purchasing of defective goods”can be dealt with in the framework of legal dogmatics without resorting to the external system.