论后悔权中商品完好要件的证明责任

对于后悔权中商品完好要件的客观证明责任,基于大陆、英美法系学理的分析无法得出明确结论;基于我国的现行法律研究得出的结论,由于其理论基础与《中华人民共和国消费者权益保护法》的立法趣旨相悖而有失妥当;从后悔权的趣旨和法经济学出发,应由经营者承担。对于主观证明责任,证明活动参与方应积极协同;同时充分利用表见证明、证明妨碍、主观具体证明责任转换等理论,推动证明活动呈近似正弦曲线的轨迹展开。由于经营者反驳后悔权的理由各异,有必要运用类型化分析方法展开不同理由下的证明活动。

Burden of Proof on Commodity in Good Condition Element in Right to Regret

For the objective burden of proof on commodity in good condition element in right to regret , there is no definite conclusion based on the analysis of the continental law system and Anglo -American legal system ’ s theory.Because of the collision between the conclusions of existing law ’ theoretical basis and the legislative purpose of Consumer ’ s Interest Protection Law , this analysis conclusion is improper.The operators ought to shoulder that objective burden of proof from the perspective of the purpose of right to regret and the economics of the law.As for the subjective burden of proof , the participants of proving activity should cooperate actively and at the same time take advantage of anscheinbeweis , spoliation of evidence , and the transferring of the concrete objective burden of proof to impel the proving activity to move along a sine wave.Due to the operators ’ various reasons to refute consumers ’ right to regret, it is necessary to analyze the proving activities concretely.