Scholarlink

This chapter addresses the concept of a consumer under Chinese private international law, specifically focusing on the interpretation of consumer choice of law rules in Article 42 of the Chinese Conflict of Laws Act. It examines the vagueness of consumer definitions under the criterion of ‘daily consumption needs’, clarifying the weight of certain factors in determining who qualifies as a consumer and what contracts fall under consumer protection in judicial practice. By analyzing challenges faced by courts in classifying consumers and non-consumers, it offers practical insights on the factors that are (ir)relevant in (dis)qualifying a person as a consumer, such as making profits, regularity of activities, and professional experience. It also addresses the classification of dual-purpose contracts where private and professional purposes are mixed. This chapter advocates for harmonized definitions and consistent application in private international law, while also examining the legislative gaps in defining consumer-related notions in both substantive and conflict of laws. It concludes that a strict interpretation of consumer notion is necessary to provide legal certainty for businesses and consumers alike in cross-border transactions. The term ‘daily consumption needs’ may refer to personal, family, or household purposes. Factors such as the economic gain, expertise, or professional knowledge does not disqualify a person from being a consumer. Professional fake-fighters or consumer activists are protected as consumers, provided they do not purchase goods for resale or business purposes and do not file malicious complaints or lawsuits. Regularity of selling products can disqualify a person as a consumer. The primary purpose of a dual-purpose contract determines whether it is a consumer contract and a dynamic approach could allow flexibility when a person changes from private to professional purposes after contract formation. The scope of Article 42 is limited, protecting only certain service, sale, and loan contracts. Contracts like package travel and timeshare, which should be covered, are not. This limited scope raises the need for expanding the material scope of consumer protection in China.

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The Notion of Consumer or Consumer Contract Under Chinese Private International Law

  • 章节

  • 发表日期：

    2025年

查看全文
  • Zhen Chen

摘要

This chapter addresses the concept of a consumer under Chinese private international law, specifically focusing on the interpretation of consumer choice of law rules in Article 42 of the Chinese Conflict of Laws Act. It examines the vagueness of consumer definitions under the criterion of ‘daily consumption needs’, clarifying the weight of certain factors in determining who qualifies as a consumer and what contracts fall under consumer protection in judicial practice. By analyzing challenges faced by courts in classifying consumers and non-consumers, it offers practical insights on the factors that are (ir)relevant in (dis)qualifying a person as a consumer, such as making profits, regularity of activities, and professional experience. It also addresses the classification of dual-purpose contracts where private and professional purposes are mixed. This chapter advocates for harmonized definitions and consistent application in private international law, while also examining the legislative gaps in defining consumer-related notions in both substantive and conflict of laws. It concludes that a strict interpretation of consumer notion is necessary to provide legal certainty for businesses and consumers alike in cross-border transactions. The term ‘daily consumption needs’ may refer to personal, family, or household purposes. Factors such as the economic gain, expertise, or professional knowledge does not disqualify a person from being a consumer. Professional fake-fighters or consumer activists are protected as consumers, provided they do not purchase goods for resale or business purposes and do not file malicious complaints or lawsuits. Regularity of selling products can disqualify a person as a consumer. The primary purpose of a dual-purpose contract determines whether it is a consumer contract and a dynamic approach could allow flexibility when a person changes from private to professional purposes after contract formation. The scope of Article 42 is limited, protecting only certain service, sale, and loan contracts. Contracts like package travel and timeshare, which should be covered, are not. This limited scope raises the need for expanding the material scope of consumer protection in China.