论购车合同中惩罚性赔偿之适用——最高人民法院第17号指导案例研究

On the Application of Punitive Damages in the Car Purchasing Contract——A Case Study of the 17th Guidance of Supreme People’s Court

各级法院对于《消费者权益保护法》第55条第一款规定的惩罚性赔偿之责任性质、经营者之免责事由、此惩罚性赔偿之赔偿基数确定有着不同的裁判立场,最高人民法院第17号指导案例亦未予言明。基于对现行法进行分析、解释,并对司法实践经验进行总结,采比较法之精华,此赔偿责任应为违约责任和缔约过失责任之竞合,合同效力的形态不影响消费者诉请惩罚性损害赔偿;"生产过程中产生之飞漆;经营者缺乏销售资质;由于工作人员失误导致错开发票或错误投保"三种情况可作为经营者之免责事由;以"汽车瑕疵部分"为多倍赔偿之计算基数亦具有正当性,是否以瑕疵部分价值作为赔偿基数,应根据是否影响汽车正常、安全使用这一标准具体考量。

Courts at all levels have different judge positions as for 1st provision of Article 55 of consumer’s interest protection law,in terms of the liability nature of punitive damages,exemptions of operators,determination of compensation base,which No. 17 case guidance of Supreme People’s court also doesn’t illustrate. Based upon analysis and explanation of existing law,and the summarization of experience of juridical practice,this paper takes advantage of the essence of comparative methods,proposing that this compensation liability should be the combination of breach liability and contracting fault liability,and that the form of contract doesn’t affect consumer appealing for punitive damages compensation. The following three cases can be taken as operator exemptions: flying paint of production process,qualification lacks of operator,staggering invoice or error insurance of staff’s mistakes. It is proper to take defects of car as calculation base of multiple compensations. However,the specific considerations of whether the defects affecting the car’s regular service and safety driving should be taken into consideration,as for whether taking the value of defects as calculation base.