消费者赔偿金制度研究-比较法学研究院.PDFVIP

消费者赔偿金制度研究 ——兼评我国新《消保法》第五十五条赔偿金制度 吴以源 摘要 倍数赔偿金制度起源于古时，其立法目的与政策性导向密切相关。惩罚性赔 偿金制度是英美法系特有的制度，其立法目的在于惩罚与吓阻。二者立法目的不 同，故金额确定之考量因素亦不同。2013 年新修订的《消费者权益保护法》中 第五十五条规定针对消费欺诈行为处以额外赔偿金，修改的第一款之规定来自于 1993 年旧消保法第四十九条，以鼓励消费者提起诉讼为目的，乃属于倍数赔偿 金制度中的民事责任；增订的第二款之规定以惩罚与吓阻不法行为为目的，乃属 于惩罚性赔偿金制度中的民事责任。在继受美国惩罚性赔偿金制度时存在以下三 点问题。第一，对于现行美国惩罚性赔偿金的限额规定情况了解不全面，轻率借 鉴。第二，惩罚性赔偿金与倍数赔偿金混淆。第三，惩罚性赔偿金数额确定的考 量因素与立法目的不符。在此基础上，提出我国惩罚性赔偿金数额确定的建议， 希望真正发挥第五十五条惩罚性赔偿金制度的作用。 关键词：倍数赔偿金；惩罚性赔偿金；消费欺诈 Abstract Multiple damage rule originated in ancient times, of which the legislative purposes are closely relative to policy. The punitive damages rule is a characteristic of common law system, with the legislative purpose of punishing and deterring. In pursuing to different legislative purpose, it differs in determination of monetary amount. The fifty-fifth provision of Consumer Protection Law of 2013 provides multiple damages to punish fraud consumer behaviors. The first article is modified from Consumer Protection Law of 1993, provision forty-ninth, to encourage consumers taking sues out of the purpose, which still subject to the multiple damage rule in civil liability. However, the second article, to punish and deter, is one of applications according to punitive damages rule. Three points should arouse people’s attention, when talking about legal transplant about penalty laws of the United States. First, lack of knowledge of limitation applied in punitive damages amount, a thoughtless analogy is not recommended. Second, there is confusion between punitive damages and multiple damages. Third,