摘要
在各电商平台中普遍存在B2C仲裁条款,域外立法对其效力持不同观点,以欧盟、英国和美国最典型。产生两种截然相反态度的根本原因是欧盟和美国在消费者保护立法上的不同法律传统和法律体系上的关键差异。在中国,消费合同中存在B2C仲裁条款的泛行业化趋势,法律规制欠缺,司法实践对该类条款效力认定不一。分析域外这两种相反立场的根源,再结合中国消费者权益保护和诉讼性质可看出,中国应采取特别规制的路径:认定“B2C强制性仲裁条款”无效;符合生效要件的“争议后B2C仲裁条款”有效;消费者自行勾选了仲裁的条款需结合其是否具有真实选择权进行效力判断,且在立法上引入限制,才能够实现消费纠纷仲裁的立法本意。
The B2C arbitration clauses that are prevalent in China’s e-commerce platforms are subject to different views on their validity in extraterritorial legislation,with the EU,the UK and the US being the most typical.Looking beyond the surface of the differences in legal systems,the root cause of opposing attitudes is the different legal traditions and key differences in the consumer protection legislation.In China,the lack of legal regulation and inconsistent judicial practice on the validity of such clauses have led to increasing abuse.By analyzing the root causes of the two opposing positions,and taking into account the nature of consumer protection and litigation in China,it can be seen that China should apply the path of special regulation.The“B2C mandatory arbitration clause”should be invalid,the“post-dispute B2C arbitration clause”should be valid,and the clause that consumers checked for arbitration on their own should be judged in the context of whether they have a real right to choose.So the legislative intent of arbitration in consumer disputes can be realized.
出处
《国际商务研究》
CSSCI
北大核心
2024年第3期73-85,共13页
International Business Research
关键词
B2C仲裁条款效力
消费仲裁
消费合同
消费者保护
不公平合同条款
validity of B2C arbitration clause
consumer arbitration
consumption contracts
consumer protection
unfair contracts terms
