农资消费适用惩罚性赔偿的问题研究

农资消费置于《消费者权益保护法》附则部分,是立法者不改变《消费者权益保护法》整体调整范围满足农民权益特殊保护的技术操作.因为农资消费的生产消费属性及农业生产资料自有规范体系,农资消费适用惩罚性赔偿的正当性需要论证,这一问题往往被理论界和司法界所忽略.以"参照本法执行"的解释论视角看,农资消费适用惩罚性赔偿具有内在正当性;从农资消费赔偿案例研究看,农资消费适用惩罚性赔偿具有外部正当性.农资消费适用惩罚性赔偿具有农资消费的主体扩张适用和目的限缩解释的误区.必须明确农资消费主体是农民,而非合作社、企业等农业经济组织;农资消费的目的是直接用于农业生产,而农业生产目的是自用或销售不影响农资消费的定性;农资消费参照《消费者权益保护法》执行是农民可选择的权利,而对公权机关或农资经营者而言具有义务性.

Application of Punitive Damage to Agricultural Materials Consumption

Including agricultural materials consumption in the supplementary provisions of Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests is a technical operation to meet peasants' special need for protecting their rights and interests without changing overall adjustment range .Because of the productive consumption attribute of agricultural materials consumption and inherent normative system of agricultural production materials , legitimacy of the application of punitive damage to agricultural materials consumption needs discussion ,but it has long been neglected in theoretical and judicial circles .From the interpretation perspective of "implementing by reference" ,the application has its internal legitimacy ;from case studies concerning the consumption compensation , the application has its external legitimacy .However ,misunderstandings still exist about consumption subject expansion and consumption limitation .Therefore ,it should be made clear that consumption subject is peasants , rather than agricultural economic organizations , such as agricultural cooperatives ,enterprises and so on;agricultural materials consumption is directly for agricultural production ,and agricultural production is only for private use or for the consumption that will not influence the determination of the nature of agricultural materials consumption;for peasants , application of punitive damage to agricultural materials consumption is their right ,while for public authorities and marketing managers of agricultural materials ,the application is their obligation .