Cross-Border Consumer Contracts

跨境消费合同

• 批准号: AH/F005520/1
• 负责人: Jonathan Derek Hill
• 金额: $ 4.31万
• 依托单位: University of Bristol
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Research Grant
• 财政年份: 2008
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2008 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FF005520%2F1
• 关键词: Cross; Border; Consumer; Contracts

I have been researching the legal issues surrounding transnational consumer contracts / particularly, online consumer contracts / for a couple of years. Although there is some literature in this area, it is of very variable quality and, to date, there is no monograph devoted specifically to cross-border consumer contracts. Furthermore, in the field of private international law, consumer contracts are accorded far less consideration than commercial contracts. So, the subject-matter of the research is something of a 'cinderella' topic within the conflict of laws. Much of the existing literature is based on highly questionable assumptions about the role that law and legal procedures can play in resolving low-value disputes; too much of it is written by computer enthusiasts who seem more interested in the technical aspects of e-commerce than its legal implications and whose grip on the relevant legal principles is less secure than it ought to be.Originally, my plan was to write a book entitled Consumer Contracts in Private International Law. This would have examined primarily the jurisdiction of national courts over disputes arising out of cross-border consumer contracts and the regime for determining the law applicable to such contracts. As my research has progressed it has become increasingly clear that, given the relatively low value of most consumer contracts (especially those concluded within the framework of e-commerce), this classical private litigation model (which is the framework for the resolution of commercial disputes) has limited relevance in the context of consumer contracts. This is because the private litigation model is relevant only to the extent that litigation provides a credible mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes; where litigation is not a credible solution to a particular problem, the formal framework of rules has a rather limited role to play in practice. Because of the inability and/or unwillingness of consumers to engage in litigation (even in small claims courts which are meant to be adapted to deal with low-value claims), if consumer rights are to be taken seriously, alternative means have to be found to enable consumers to obtain redress. Accordingly, I have extended the range of my research to look at alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and the implications of so-called 'soft law' (such as website certification schemes).I think that the book is going to be largely a tale of missed opportunities and the failure of government to take questions of consumer access-to-justice seriously. A number of tentative conclusions are emerging. First, notwithstanding the time and money invested by government (both at the national and EU levels) in trying to make small claims courts more accessible, there is no evidence to suggest that, in the cross-border context, consumers who are in dispute with a supplier consider litigation to be a realistic option. Secondly, developments in the field of ADR are too piecemeal and fragmented to enable ADR mechanisms to be genuinely effective. Such developments have tended to operate at the national level (rather than globally or regionally) and many national ADR schemes are ill-adapted to deal with cross-border disputes. Thirdly, to the extent that there has been governmental involvement, it has mainly been restricted to encouraging self-regulation (rather than the creation of an overarching global or regional framework). Fourthly, although the development of e-commerce has greatly increased the potential for consumers to enter cross-border transactions, the idea that, when compared to traditional commerce, e-commerce presents radically different legal problems (needing radically different solutions) is largely fallacious. However, these conclusions are, at this stage, provisional / and will have to be tested and refined during the course of the writing of the manuscript.

几年来，我一直在研究围绕跨国消费者合同(尤其是在线消费者合同)的法律问题。虽然在这一领域有一些文献，但其质量参差不齐，而且到目前为止，还没有专门研究跨境消费者合同的专著。此外，在国际私法领域，消费者合同受到的考虑比商业合同少得多。因此，这项研究的主题是法律冲突中的灰姑娘主题。现有的许多文献都是基于对法律和法律程序在解决低价值纠纷中所能发挥的作用的高度可疑的假设；太多的文献是由计算机爱好者撰写的，他们似乎对电子商务的技术方面比其法律含义更感兴趣，而且他们对相关法律原则的掌握没有达到应有的程度。最初，我的计划是写一本名为《国际私法中的消费者合同》的书。这将主要审查国家法院对跨界消费者合同引起的争议的管辖权以及确定适用于这类合同的法律的制度。随着我研究的进展，越来越清楚的是，鉴于大多数消费者合同(特别是在电子商务框架内订立的合同)的价值相对较低，这种经典的私人诉讼模式(这是解决商业纠纷的框架)在消费者合同方面的相关性有限。这是因为，只有在诉讼为解决法律纠纷提供了可信机制的情况下，私人诉讼模式才具有相关性；在诉讼不是解决特定问题的可信解决办法的情况下，正式的规则框架在实践中发挥的作用相当有限。由于消费者没有能力和/或不愿意进行诉讼(即使是在小额索赔法院，其目的是为了处理低价值索赔)，如果要认真对待消费者权利，就必须找到其他手段，使消费者能够获得赔偿。因此，我扩大了我的研究范围，着眼于替代纠纷解决(ADR)和所谓的“软法”(如网站认证计划)的影响。我认为，这本书将在很大程度上讲述一个错失机会的故事，以及政府未能认真对待消费者诉诸司法的问题。一些试探性的结论正在浮现。首先，尽管政府(无论是在国家层面还是欧盟层面)投入了大量时间和金钱，试图让小额索赔法庭更容易获得，但没有证据表明，在跨境背景下，与供应商发生纠纷的消费者认为诉讼是一个现实的选择。其次，药品不良反应领域的发展过于零碎和零散，不能使药品不良反应机制真正有效。此类发展往往在国家一级(而不是在全球或区域一级)运作，许多国家的ADR计划不适合处理跨界争端。第三，就政府的参与而言，它主要限于鼓励自律(而不是创建一个总体的全球或区域框架)。第四，尽管电子商务的发展极大地增加了消费者进入跨境交易的潜力，但认为与传统商务相比，电子商务带来了截然不同的法律问题(需要截然不同的解决方案)的想法在很大程度上是错误的。然而，这些结论在现阶段是临时的，必须在撰写手稿的过程中进行检验和完善。