論產(chǎn)品瑕疵責(zé)任與產(chǎn)品缺陷責(zé)任

24頁(yè) 1.75萬(wàn)字

摘 要
產(chǎn)品瑕疵責(zé)任和產(chǎn)品缺陷責(zé)任是產(chǎn)品相關(guān)責(zé)任制度中比較容易混淆的一對(duì)概念，我國(guó)相關(guān)法律并沒(méi)有對(duì)他們作出嚴(yán)格的界定。產(chǎn)品瑕疵是指產(chǎn)品不符合合同約定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，在質(zhì)量、性能、用途和有效期限等方面存在不合格的狀況。產(chǎn)品缺陷是指產(chǎn)品存在危及人身、財(cái)產(chǎn)安全的不合理的危險(xiǎn)。相應(yīng)地，產(chǎn)品瑕疵責(zé)任和產(chǎn)品缺陷責(zé)任就是指在產(chǎn)品存在瑕疵時(shí)和產(chǎn)品存在缺陷時(shí)所產(chǎn)生的民事法律責(zé)任。本文的重點(diǎn)是產(chǎn)品瑕疵責(zé)任和產(chǎn)品缺陷責(zé)任之間的關(guān)系。產(chǎn)品瑕疵責(zé)任與產(chǎn)品缺陷之間有聯(lián)系，也存在區(qū)別。產(chǎn)品瑕疵責(zé)任和產(chǎn)品缺陷責(zé)任主要體現(xiàn)在：判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不同、責(zé)任主體不同、責(zé)任性質(zhì)不同、免責(zé)條件不同以及責(zé)任承擔(dān)方式不同。此外，本文還重點(diǎn)研究了產(chǎn)品瑕疵責(zé)任的歸責(zé)原則和產(chǎn)品缺陷責(zé)任的歸責(zé)原則，本文的觀點(diǎn)是產(chǎn)品瑕疵責(zé)任的歸責(zé)原則是無(wú)過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則，而產(chǎn)品缺陷責(zé)任的歸責(zé)原則分不同的情況分別為嚴(yán)格責(zé)任和過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任。
在此基礎(chǔ)上，本文對(duì)一個(gè)“高壓鍋爆炸案”展開(kāi)了詳細(xì)的分析。產(chǎn)品瑕疵責(zé)任和產(chǎn)品缺陷責(zé)任的歸責(zé)原則也不同，這主要是出于立法者對(duì)不同利益的平衡。本文認(rèn)為，我國(guó)產(chǎn)品瑕疵責(zé)任體系臻于完善，但是產(chǎn)品缺陷責(zé)任體系還需要進(jìn)一步改進(jìn)。

關(guān)鍵詞：產(chǎn)品瑕疵責(zé)任 產(chǎn)品缺陷責(zé)任 區(qū)別

THE RESEARCH ON LIABILITY FOR WARRANTY AGAINST DEFECTS AND PRODUCT DEFECT LIABILITY

ABSTRACT
Liability for warranty against defects and product defect liability are easy to be confused, and the laws do dot make any definition about them. In liability for warranty against defects, the term defects refers to the status that the products do not fit in with the criterion the contract provides. But in product defect liablity the term defect refers to the products contain unreasonable dangers which could damage the users’ properties or bodies. Correspondingly, the two liablities belong to the civil liablities caused by the products which is in some status mentioned above. There are some relationships between liability for warranty against defects and product defect liablity, but there are many differences between the two, which need to be differentiated well. The difference s of the two liabilities lie in the criterion, the liablity taker, the quality, the liablity-taking-off cindition and the manner of liability assuming.
On the basis of the research above, this paper adopted a case in which a pressure cooker exploded and the issue of the two liabilities arose. The principles of the liablity undertaking are also different in liability for warranty against defect and product defect liability, for the legislator may use different principles to balance the intrests of every parties. The legal system of liability for warranty against defects functions well in China, but the legal system of product defect liability is far from perfection and need to be improved.

Key Words: Liability for warranty against defects,Product defect liability,Difference

目 錄
摘要………………………………………………………………III
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………...IV
引言………………………………………………………………..1
一、產(chǎn)品瑕疵責(zé)任與產(chǎn)品缺陷責(zé)任概述………………………..2
（一）產(chǎn)品瑕疵責(zé)任概述………………………………………………2
1.產(chǎn)品瑕疵概念………………………………………………………………………2
2.產(chǎn)品瑕疵責(zé)任概念…………………………………………………………………3
（二）產(chǎn)品缺陷責(zé)任概述……………………………………………..3
1.產(chǎn)品缺陷概念………………………………………………………………………3
2.產(chǎn)品缺陷責(zé)任概念…………………………………………………………………4
二、產(chǎn)品瑕疵責(zé)任與產(chǎn)品缺陷責(zé)任的關(guān)系分析………………….5
（一）產(chǎn)品瑕疵責(zé)任與產(chǎn)品缺陷責(zé)任的聯(lián)系…………………………5
1.兩者都是和產(chǎn)品有關(guān)的責(zé)任……………………………………………………..5
2.兩者都是民事責(zé)任………………………………………………………………..5
（二）產(chǎn)品瑕疵責(zé)任和產(chǎn)品缺陷責(zé)任的區(qū)別…………………………5
1.判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不同………………………………………………………………………5
2.責(zé)任主體不同……………………………………………………………………..6
3.責(zé)任性質(zhì)不同………………………………………………………………………6
4.免責(zé)條件不同………………………………………………………………………6
5.責(zé)任承擔(dān)方式不同…………………………………………………………………6
（三）產(chǎn)品瑕疵責(zé)任與產(chǎn)品缺陷責(zé)任關(guān)系的案例分析………………7
1.案情介紹……………………………………………………………………………7
2.案情分析及該案例的意義…………………………………………………………7
四、我國(guó)產(chǎn)品瑕疵責(zé)任與產(chǎn)品缺陷責(zé)任歸責(zé)原則………………10
（一）我國(guó)產(chǎn)品瑕疵責(zé)任的歸責(zé)原則…………………………………10
1.確定產(chǎn)品瑕疵責(zé)任歸責(zé)原則的法律依據(jù)……………………………………….10
2.確定產(chǎn)品瑕疵責(zé)任歸責(zé)原則應(yīng)為雙重歸責(zé)原則……………………………….11
（二）我國(guó)產(chǎn)品缺陷責(zé)任的歸責(zé)原則………………………………..11
1.確定產(chǎn)品缺陷責(zé)任歸責(zé)原則的法律依據(jù)……………………………………….11
2.確定產(chǎn)品缺陷責(zé)任歸責(zé)原則應(yīng)為雙重歸責(zé)原則……………………………….12
五、對(duì)完善我國(guó)產(chǎn)品瑕疵責(zé)任與產(chǎn)品缺陷責(zé)任制度的思考……13
（一）對(duì)完善我國(guó)產(chǎn)品瑕疵責(zé)任的思考………………………………13
1.產(chǎn)品瑕疵責(zé)任制度存在的問(wèn)題………………………………………………….13
2.完善我國(guó)產(chǎn)品瑕疵責(zé)任制度的思考…………………………………………….14
（二）對(duì)完善我國(guó)產(chǎn)品缺陷責(zé)任的思考…………………………….14
1.擴(kuò)大產(chǎn)品的范圍………………………………………………………………….14
2.擴(kuò)展產(chǎn)品責(zé)任的責(zé)任主體……………………………………………………….15
3.完善抗辯事由…………………………………………………………………….15
4.應(yīng)該明確精神損害賠償………………………………………………………….15
5.規(guī)范間接損失的賠償范圍……………………………………………………….15
結(jié)論……………………………………………………………….17
參考文獻(xiàn)………………………………………………………….18
致謝……………………………………………………………….19



參考文獻(xiàn)
[1]周枏．羅馬法原論（下）[M]．北京：商務(wù)印書(shū)館，2002.
[2]張新寶．買賣合同與贈(zèng)與合同[M]．法律出版社，1999.
[3] 王利明．民法•侵權(quán)行為法[M]．中國(guó)人民大學(xué)出版社，1993.
[4] 劉靜著．產(chǎn)品責(zé)任論[M]．中國(guó)政法大學(xué)出版社，2000.
[5] 劉文琦著．產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法律制度比較研究[M]．法律出版社，1997.
[6] 王澤鑒著．商品制造人責(zé)任與消費(fèi)者保護(hù)[M]．臺(tái)灣正中書(shū)局，1979.

[1] [日]植木哲．產(chǎn)品責(zé)任[J]．謝志宇譯.法學(xué)譯叢，1992,（6）.
[2] [日] 藤家晴生．關(guān)于產(chǎn)品責(zé)任立法化的考察[J]．鮑榮振澤，法學(xué)譯叢，1992,（5）.
[3] 莊紅蕾．產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量相關(guān)法律問(wèn)題探析[J]．行政與法，2006,（1）.
[4] 屈慶昌．歉意產(chǎn)品責(zé)任之產(chǎn)品缺陷[J]．市場(chǎng)周刊，2006,（3）.
[5] 江偉．商品瑕疵，損失兩萬(wàn)[J]．商品與質(zhì)量，2005,（27）.
[6] 王福友．論產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量法上的瑕疵給付責(zé)任[J]．學(xué)術(shù)交流，2006,（6）.
[7] 王玉梅．論產(chǎn)品瑕疵責(zé)任與產(chǎn)品缺陷責(zé)任[J]．財(cái)經(jīng)界，2002,（12）.
[8] 胡建梅．對(duì)產(chǎn)品責(zé)任、產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量責(zé)任的比較[J]．商場(chǎng)現(xiàn)代化，2007.
[9] 郭洪波．完善產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法的建議[J]．當(dāng)代法學(xué)，2001,（6）.