消费品瑕疵的司法证明问题  

The Judicial Proof of Consumer-goods Flaws

作　　者：谌宏伟[1] 

机构地区：[1]赣南师范学院应用法学研究中心,江西赣州341000

出　　处：《赣南师范学院学报》2015年第5期64-68,共5页Journal of Gannan Teachers' College(Social Science(2))

基　　金：江西省社会科学研究"十二五"规划项目(14FX06);赣州市社联课题(12251)

摘　　要：在消费品瑕疵案件中,经营者提供的商品或服务是否存在瑕疵的事实究竟由哪一方负责证明,关系到当事人的举证成本及诉讼成败,具有重要的意义。现行消费者权益保护法第23条第3款并没有创设一个举证责任倒置条款,只不过把隐藏在债务不履行说背后的举证责任分配规则挖掘、宣示了出来。在我国现行法框架下,不管是否为耐用商品或装饰装修等服务,只要消费者在法定或约定的异议期内主张商品或服务有瑕疵,发生争议的,就应该由经营者证明该商品或服务无瑕疵,并承担证明不了所带来的不利后果。That the consumers prove the commodities/services provided by operators to be flawed or the operator himself proves the commodities/services to be flawless, is significant and directly relevant to the party＇s proof cost and lawsuit success in the case of con- sumer goods flaws. It has not created a clause of the Conversion for Burden of Proof in term of No. 3 of Clause 23, Consumer Protection Act; it just declared the allocation rules of Burden of Proof behind the Default of Debt. In China, from the perspective of laws interpre- tation, the operator should prove the commodities/services to be flawless and bear the adverse consequences if un-provable, as long as the dispute occurs that the consumer contends the commodities or services flawed during the quality demurral, whether it durable prod- ucts or decoration service.

关 键 词：消费者 商品或服务 瑕疵 举证责任 

分 类 号：D925.1[政治法律—诉讼法学]