《消费者权益保护法》中“欺诈”的解释方法改进

司法实践中,人民法院对《消费者权益保护法》第55条规定的"欺诈"有四种解释。这是对"欺诈"的文义在行政解释与民法解释之间进行抉择的结果,忽略了追问《消费者权益保护法》上欺诈者对前置义务的违反,且未对消费者是否确受误导,所受损失是否与欺诈行为形成因果关系进行深入剖析。这是长期以来将经济法上的"欺诈"等同于民法上"欺诈"造成的痼疾,故而无法理清实际损失与惩罚性赔偿请求权是否可分开主张,更无法对知假买假行为形成公允评价。应当在文义解释的基础上进一步运用体系解释方法,以欺诈行为与《消费者权益保护法》第3章关于质量、价格、如实宣传等经营者义务间对应关系为依据,阐释欺诈者违反不同前置义务的责任形态,并以《消费者权益保护法》力求形成经营者—消费者共治的价值理念,通过目的解释剥夺消费者恶意破坏市场秩序时对经营者主张欺诈责任的资格。

Improvement of the interpretation method of"fraud"in the Consumer Protection Law

In judicial practice, the People’s Court has formed four interpretations of "fraud" under Article 55 of the Consumer Protection Law. This is the result of a choice between the administrative interpretation and the interpretation of civil law in the meaning of "fraud", ignoring the violation of the pre-emptive obligation by the fraudster on the Consumer Protection Law, and whether the consumer is indeed whether the misleading and the losses suffered from a causal relationship with fraudulent behavior, which reflects the problem that the institutional supply is insufficient by the single use of semantic interpretation method. Therefore, it is impossible to clarify whether the actual loss and punitive damages claim can be claimed separately, nor to form a fair evaluation of the knowing-it-is-fake-and-buying behavior. Accordingly, on the basis of semantic interpretation, we should further apply the method of systematic interpretation, based on the corresponding relationship between fraud and the operator’s obligations such as quality, price, and truthful publicity in Chapter III of the Consumer Law, to explain the liability form of the fraudsters in violation of different preposition obligation, and disqualify consumers from claiming fraudulent liability to the operator when they maliciously destroy market order, with the value concept of co-management of consumers and operators in the Consumer Law.