知假买假行为适用惩罚性赔偿的思考——基于法经济学和法社会学的视角

《消法》第49条规定的惩罚性赔偿制度的功能并不仅在于对受害者的赔偿和致害者的惩罚,而更多地在于通过有效减少不良行为者的利益促使其良性行为,从而维护市场的有序,但这有赖于消费者成功的维权行为,而消费者维权行为的缺乏使这一制度的打假功能无法实现。虽然公力执法与私力执法各有其专有领域,但他们之间的界线并非绝对、恒定。政府的能力大小、公益性程度、执法效率的高低及私力执法的成本与收益等因素决定了这条界线的偏离方向及程度。如果私力执行的成本更低,激励更大,效率更高,负面影响不大,而若公力执行的效率下高,则应该考虑私力路径的采用。综合考虑我国目前政府打假能力及公益性程度、假冒伪劣产品的泛滥程度、市场主体诚信行为的比例、消费者受欺诈的严重程度等因素以及可能的变化方向及程度,在我国目前赋予知假买假者获得惩罚性赔偿的权利以发挥其打假功能是必要的。

On the Imposition of Punitive Damage on Knowingly Bought of Falsified Products

The functions of punitive damages prescribed by consumer law is not only to compensate the injured and to punish the injurer, importantly also to force the injurer do in good faith by decreasing the injure r's benefit, furtherly to keep the order of the markert. But this depends on the facts that consumers maintain the right successfully, in fact lack of action of consumers makes the expected function fail to come to truth. The boundary between private and public law enforcement of law is not absolute, if there are lower costs, higher efficiency, and if the efficiency of public enforcement of law is high enough, we should consider adopting private law enforcement of law in some fields. Taking the present situations in China into account, it is now necessary to entitle the right of acquiring punitive damages to the one who buys the goods and receives the service while knowing their false in quality.