“知假买假”:基于功能主义的评价标准构建与实践应用

关于"‘知假买假’者能否主张惩罚性赔偿",大部分既有研究属于形式主义争论,在说服力、精确度、合理性三方面存在不足,故应转向功能主义,重构评价标准。《消费者权益保护法》第55条第1款的制度功能为威慑与制裁。由法经济学理论与实证结果可发现,知假买假者是上述两项功能的主要执行者。然而,他们的主张不应在所有场合都获得支持。基于威慑功能,应以知假买假能否帮助提升"被追责率"为判断标准,考察欺诈行为的隐秘程度与消费者相对于维权收益的维权成本;基于制裁功能,应以知假买假打击的欺诈行为是否具有较大负外部性为评价标准,考察欺诈行为造成不特定多数消费者人身损害的可能性及程度,以及对市场竞争秩序的破坏程度。将上述标准应用于实践,可将作为知假买假对象的欺诈行为区分为"强威慑强制裁""强威慑弱制裁""弱威慑弱制裁"三种类型,并予以区别对待,从而得出更妥当的处理结论。

“Intentional Purchase of Defective Goods”:A Functionalist Test and Its Application

On "whether one who intentionally purchases defective goods or services can be granted punitive damages", most discussion by far focuses on the formality of law, but lacking persuasiveness, precision and reasonableness.This article purposes a functionalist test.From the perspective of law and economics, it can be observed that the two functions of Article 55(1)of the Consumer Protection Law are deterrence and punishment, and the purchasers who intentionally consume defective goods or services are the actual enforcers.Nevertheless, granting them punitive damages in all circumstances cannot be justified.The function of deterrence focuses on whether these purchasers can truly help increasing the claim-damage-rate, which looks into whether the fraudulent act is ulterior and whether an ordinary consumer will pay high cost if it seeks for damage.The function of punishment emphasises on whether the fraudulent act brings huge negative externality, which examines whether it will cause mass health damages and whether it will demolish the market’s order.Through applying this test, fraudulent acts can be divided into three categories and be handled differently, which will bring more appropriate and reasonable conclusions.