本文主要探讨了电子合同在电子商务法中的适用与规范问题。首先,文章介绍了电子合同的定义、法律效力和签订、履行、争议解决等方面的法律规定。其次,文章指出了电子合同在电子商务法中存在的问题,包括法律定义和适用范围不够明确、存...本文主要探讨了电子合同在电子商务法中的适用与规范问题。首先,文章介绍了电子合同的定义、法律效力和签订、履行、争议解决等方面的法律规定。其次,文章指出了电子合同在电子商务法中存在的问题,包括法律定义和适用范围不够明确、存在安全性问题和缺乏纠纷解决机制等。最后,文章提出了优化电子合同适用与规范的建议,包括明确法律定义和适用范围、保障电子合同安全以及完善解决机制等。This paper mainly discusses the application and regulation of electronic contracts in e-commerce law. First of all, the article introduces the definition, legal effect and legal provisions of electronic contract, such as signing, performance and dispute resolution. Secondly, the article points out the problems existing in the e-commerce law of electronic contracts, including the lack of clarity in the definition and scope of application of the law, the existence of security problems and the lack of dispute resolution mechanism. Finally, this paper puts forward some suggestions for optimizing the application and norms of electronic contracts, including clarifying the legal definition and scope of application, ensuring the security of electronic contracts, and improving the resolution mechanism.展开更多
在我国现行法律体系的框架下,规制“二选一”行为看似有法可依,实则面临着无法可循的局面。《反垄断法》面临着滥用市场支配地位条款难以界定市场支配地位,“无正当理由”证成依据缺失的问题,垄断协议条款存在着适用主体受限、非价格垄...在我国现行法律体系的框架下,规制“二选一”行为看似有法可依,实则面临着无法可循的局面。《反垄断法》面临着滥用市场支配地位条款难以界定市场支配地位,“无正当理由”证成依据缺失的问题,垄断协议条款存在着适用主体受限、非价格垄断协议的认定缺乏适用标准等困难。《电子商务法》《反不正当竞争法》亦存在与此相关的条文,但相关规定或缺乏相应的理论基础,或原则性强而可操作性低,或与该等行为的特征不符,实际约束力偏弱。要规制目前的困境局面,首先要厘清各部门法之间的关系,消除《电子商务法》第35条架空《反垄断法》滥用市场支配地位条款的风险,构筑起反垄断法和反不正当竞争法互相协调,相互补充的二元规制格局。其次要明确电子商务领域确认市场支配地位的要素,对“无正当理由”进行证成,将独家交易协议解释为纵向垄断协议条款的适用情形。并对《电子商务法》第35条进行限缩解释,引入滥用相对优势地位理论明确其理论基础,明晰具体适用条件,提高该条款的可执行性。Under the framework of our current legal system, it seems that there is a legal basis for regulating the “either-or” behavior, but in fact, it is facing a situation that cannot be followed. With the application of the Anti-Monopoly Law, the abuse of market dominant position clause is faced with the problems of difficult to define market dominant position and lack of evidence of “no justification”. There are some difficulties in the terms of monopoly agreement, such as limited subject of application and lack of applicable standard for the identification of non-price monopoly agreement. There are relevant provisions in the Electronic Commerce Law and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, but the relevant provisions either lack the corresponding theoretical basis, or are strong in principle but low in operability, or are inconsistent with the characteristics of these acts, and the actual binding force is weak. In order to regulate the current difficult situation, we must first clarify the relationship between the various departments of law, eliminate the risk of the Anti-Monopoly Law abuse of market dominance clause in Article 35 of the Electronic Commerce Law, and build a dual regulatory pattern in which the anti-monopoly law and the anti-unfair competition law coordinate and complement each other. Secondly, it is necessary to clarify the elements of confirming market dominance in the field of e-commerce, to certify “without justification”, and to interpret the exclusive transaction agreement as the application of the terms of the vertical monopoly agreement. Article 35 of the Electronic Commerce Law is interpreted in a limited way, and the theory of abuse of comparative advantage status is introduced to clarify its theoretical basis and clarify specific applicable conditions to improve the enforceability of the article.展开更多
《电子商务法》实施以来,电子商务平台经营者的法律责任经历了从无到有、从线下移转至线上的模式改变,《消费者权益保护法》所规定的电子商务平台内经营者主体责任转向了《电子商务法》的电子商务平台经营者第一责任,再至目前的合规经...《电子商务法》实施以来,电子商务平台经营者的法律责任经历了从无到有、从线下移转至线上的模式改变,《消费者权益保护法》所规定的电子商务平台内经营者主体责任转向了《电子商务法》的电子商务平台经营者第一责任,再至目前的合规经营阶段,由过去责任转变至预防责任,由被动化为主动,经济法社会责任的特质在平台责任之构建上得以充分体现,电子商务平台经营者法律责任同电子商务治理模式共同处于不断进化的过程当中。《电子商务法》作为一部在互联网环境下应运而生的法律,在整体规则设计上还存在一定的不成熟之处,尤其在司法实践过程中,平台经营者责任认定与要件构成方面存在系列法律的适用问题仍待明晰。本文以《电子商务法》第38条为载体,就该条款的逻辑结构进行分析拆解,分析其适用要件与法律后果,以期进一步明晰平台经营者法律责任定位与内涵,为司法裁判提供一个稳定统一的裁判思路。Since the implementation of the E-Commerce Law, the legal responsibility of e-commerce platform operators has experienced a change in mode from none to some, from offline to online, the main responsibility of e-commerce platform operators stipulated in the Consumer Protection Law has shifted to the first responsibility of e-commerce platform operators in the E-Commerce Law, and then to the current stage of compliant operation, and has changed from the past responsibility to the preventive responsibility, and has become active instead of passive, and the quality of social responsibility in economic law has been fully reflected in the construction of platform responsibility. The legal responsibility of e-commerce platform operators and the e-commerce governance model are in the process of continuous evolution. The E-Commerce Law, as a law that came into being under the Internet environment, has certain immaturity in the overall design of rules, especially in the process of judicial practice, there are a series of legal problems in the determination of the responsibility of the platform operator and the composition of the elements that still need to be clarified. This article takes Article 38 of the E-Commerce Law as the carrier, analyzes and dismantles the logical structure of this article, analyzes its applicable elements and legal consequences, in order to further clarify the positioning and connotation of the legal responsibility of the platform operator, and provide a stable and unified adjudication idea for the judicial decision.展开更多
文摘本文主要探讨了电子合同在电子商务法中的适用与规范问题。首先,文章介绍了电子合同的定义、法律效力和签订、履行、争议解决等方面的法律规定。其次,文章指出了电子合同在电子商务法中存在的问题,包括法律定义和适用范围不够明确、存在安全性问题和缺乏纠纷解决机制等。最后,文章提出了优化电子合同适用与规范的建议,包括明确法律定义和适用范围、保障电子合同安全以及完善解决机制等。This paper mainly discusses the application and regulation of electronic contracts in e-commerce law. First of all, the article introduces the definition, legal effect and legal provisions of electronic contract, such as signing, performance and dispute resolution. Secondly, the article points out the problems existing in the e-commerce law of electronic contracts, including the lack of clarity in the definition and scope of application of the law, the existence of security problems and the lack of dispute resolution mechanism. Finally, this paper puts forward some suggestions for optimizing the application and norms of electronic contracts, including clarifying the legal definition and scope of application, ensuring the security of electronic contracts, and improving the resolution mechanism.
文摘在我国现行法律体系的框架下,规制“二选一”行为看似有法可依,实则面临着无法可循的局面。《反垄断法》面临着滥用市场支配地位条款难以界定市场支配地位,“无正当理由”证成依据缺失的问题,垄断协议条款存在着适用主体受限、非价格垄断协议的认定缺乏适用标准等困难。《电子商务法》《反不正当竞争法》亦存在与此相关的条文,但相关规定或缺乏相应的理论基础,或原则性强而可操作性低,或与该等行为的特征不符,实际约束力偏弱。要规制目前的困境局面,首先要厘清各部门法之间的关系,消除《电子商务法》第35条架空《反垄断法》滥用市场支配地位条款的风险,构筑起反垄断法和反不正当竞争法互相协调,相互补充的二元规制格局。其次要明确电子商务领域确认市场支配地位的要素,对“无正当理由”进行证成,将独家交易协议解释为纵向垄断协议条款的适用情形。并对《电子商务法》第35条进行限缩解释,引入滥用相对优势地位理论明确其理论基础,明晰具体适用条件,提高该条款的可执行性。Under the framework of our current legal system, it seems that there is a legal basis for regulating the “either-or” behavior, but in fact, it is facing a situation that cannot be followed. With the application of the Anti-Monopoly Law, the abuse of market dominant position clause is faced with the problems of difficult to define market dominant position and lack of evidence of “no justification”. There are some difficulties in the terms of monopoly agreement, such as limited subject of application and lack of applicable standard for the identification of non-price monopoly agreement. There are relevant provisions in the Electronic Commerce Law and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, but the relevant provisions either lack the corresponding theoretical basis, or are strong in principle but low in operability, or are inconsistent with the characteristics of these acts, and the actual binding force is weak. In order to regulate the current difficult situation, we must first clarify the relationship between the various departments of law, eliminate the risk of the Anti-Monopoly Law abuse of market dominance clause in Article 35 of the Electronic Commerce Law, and build a dual regulatory pattern in which the anti-monopoly law and the anti-unfair competition law coordinate and complement each other. Secondly, it is necessary to clarify the elements of confirming market dominance in the field of e-commerce, to certify “without justification”, and to interpret the exclusive transaction agreement as the application of the terms of the vertical monopoly agreement. Article 35 of the Electronic Commerce Law is interpreted in a limited way, and the theory of abuse of comparative advantage status is introduced to clarify its theoretical basis and clarify specific applicable conditions to improve the enforceability of the article.
文摘《电子商务法》实施以来,电子商务平台经营者的法律责任经历了从无到有、从线下移转至线上的模式改变,《消费者权益保护法》所规定的电子商务平台内经营者主体责任转向了《电子商务法》的电子商务平台经营者第一责任,再至目前的合规经营阶段,由过去责任转变至预防责任,由被动化为主动,经济法社会责任的特质在平台责任之构建上得以充分体现,电子商务平台经营者法律责任同电子商务治理模式共同处于不断进化的过程当中。《电子商务法》作为一部在互联网环境下应运而生的法律,在整体规则设计上还存在一定的不成熟之处,尤其在司法实践过程中,平台经营者责任认定与要件构成方面存在系列法律的适用问题仍待明晰。本文以《电子商务法》第38条为载体,就该条款的逻辑结构进行分析拆解,分析其适用要件与法律后果,以期进一步明晰平台经营者法律责任定位与内涵,为司法裁判提供一个稳定统一的裁判思路。Since the implementation of the E-Commerce Law, the legal responsibility of e-commerce platform operators has experienced a change in mode from none to some, from offline to online, the main responsibility of e-commerce platform operators stipulated in the Consumer Protection Law has shifted to the first responsibility of e-commerce platform operators in the E-Commerce Law, and then to the current stage of compliant operation, and has changed from the past responsibility to the preventive responsibility, and has become active instead of passive, and the quality of social responsibility in economic law has been fully reflected in the construction of platform responsibility. The legal responsibility of e-commerce platform operators and the e-commerce governance model are in the process of continuous evolution. The E-Commerce Law, as a law that came into being under the Internet environment, has certain immaturity in the overall design of rules, especially in the process of judicial practice, there are a series of legal problems in the determination of the responsibility of the platform operator and the composition of the elements that still need to be clarified. This article takes Article 38 of the E-Commerce Law as the carrier, analyzes and dismantles the logical structure of this article, analyzes its applicable elements and legal consequences, in order to further clarify the positioning and connotation of the legal responsibility of the platform operator, and provide a stable and unified adjudication idea for the judicial decision.
