论销售者产品责任抗辩事由--以《产品质量法》第41条3项抗辩事由为视角

摘要

Whether distributor could invoke three defenses of article 41 of “Product Quality Law” depends on which product system the decider adopts.There are different understandings of the system of article 41-43 of“Product Quality Law” and“Tort Liability Law”.The legislative history and the trend of the product liability and the words indicate the reasonableness to take article 41, 42 as the base of manufacture product liability and distributor product liability, article 43 as recourse base of manufacture and distributor.Three defenses are from EU“Product Liability Directive”, distributor can′t assume more risk than manufacture and the contradiction graft between the source of defenses and subjects of prod-uct liability make it reasonable for the distributor to revoke the three defenses.The negative idea based on not reasonable product liability system is absolute product liability, which doesn′t conform to the trend of world′s product liability and the doctrine of balance of interests.%销售者是否有权提起《产品质量法》第41条3项抗辩事由取决于裁决者采纳何种产品责任体系。学界对该法及《侵权责任法》第41－43条存在不同理解，但产品责任立法史及其发展趋势、条文措辞都表明，第41、42条作为经营者承担产品责任依据、第43条作为追偿依据的合理性。3项抗辩事由之来源、销售者不应比生产者承担更大风险的理念，以及我国产品责任是抗辩事由来源与产品责任主体的矛盾嫁接，使销售者提起该些抗辩事由具有合理性。基于不合理产品责任体系的否定说实质是绝对产品责任，它既不符合当下各国产品责任的发展潮流，也不符合利益平衡理论。