|
|
|
| Conceptual Analysis and Legal Application of E-commerce Contracts and Electronic Contracts |
| Wu Yiyue |
| College of Comparative Law, China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing 100088, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Article 512 of the Civil Code introduces the concept of the “electronic contracts” for the first time, but its wording is extremely similar to Article 51 of the E-Commerce Law, leading to frequent confusion between electronic contracts and e-commerce contracts. This conceptual confusion has resulted in difficulties in legal application in judicial practice, which is particularly evident in new transaction models such as online shopping.Clarifying these two concepts requires an understanding of their respective historical development and connotations. Since its inception, e-commerce has undergone several stages of development, and its content has expanded accordingly. In the late 20th and early 21st Centuries, international legal instruments such as the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce, the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Signatures, and the United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts, as well as national legislation like the U.S. Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, the EU Electronic Signatures Directive, and China’s Electronic Signature Law, primarily focused on the application of electronic communications in commercial activities. These laws aimed at addressing the legal validity of expressions of intent made via data messages. However, with the rise of Internet-based platforms, e-commerce has evolved into an entirely new mode of transaction, resulting in the digitalization of the entire business model. The promulgation of China’s E-Commerce Law reflects this transformation, with its central focus shifting to the comprehensive regulation of the conduct of e-commerce operators and platform operators.In the digital era, an e-commerce contract should include two key elements: first, the existence of e-commerce activities, meaning that operators conduct sales or service activities through the Internet or other information networks; and second, the contract must be in electronic form, which includes contracts concluded through automated information systems as well as those established via email, WeChat, or other electronic communication methods. In contrast, an “electronic contract” under the Civil Code only concerns the form of contract conclusion, namely, “concluded via the Internet or other information networks”. This is essentially the same as a contract “concluded in the form of a data message”, and, from a systematic interpretation perspective, constitutes a special form of written contract. An e-commerce contract, in addition to the requirement of electronic form, must satisfy the core criterion of “the existence of e-commerce activities”, that is, there must be sales or service provision activities carried out by an operator via the Internet or other information networks. There is also a clear distinction in their scope of application: electronic contracts apply to any contract concluded via the Internet, without restriction as to the parties’ identities, business attributes, or specific types of cases; e-commerce contracts, however, exist only within e-commerce activities—at least one party must be an operator, and areas such as financial products, services, and online content services are specifically excluded.By placing the rules originally intended only for e-commerce scenarios into the general provisions of the contract section, Article 512 of the Civil Code causes its application to extend beyond the original legislative intent, creating conflicts with rules such as those governing delivery sales. In scenarios like online shopping, contradictions arise between the traditional rules for delivery sales, the special provisions of the E-Commerce Law, and the Civil Code’s rules for electronic contracts, leading to confusion in legal application. To resolve this issue, Article 512 of the Civil Code should be restrictively interpreted so that its scope is limited to e-commerce contracts rather than all electronic contracts. Only in this way can the increasingly prevalent e-commerce activities such as online shopping be correctly governed by law, thereby properly managing the relationship between the Civil Code’s delivery rules and the relevant clauses of the E-Commerce Law, and ensuring the coherence of legal interpretation and the correctness of judicial application.
|
|
Received: 12 March 2024
|
|
|
|
1 黄薇主编：《中华人民共和国民法典合同编解读》（上册），北京：中国法制出版社，2020年。
2 杨巍：《合同通则·原理与案例》，北京：中国民主法制出版社，2024年。
3 徐涤宇、张家勇主编：《〈中华人民共和国民法典〉评注（精要版）》（第二版），北京：中国人民大学出版社，2025年。
4 朱广新、谢鸿飞主编：《民法典评注：合同编通则》，北京：中国法制出版社，2020年。
5 刘颖、刘文鉴：《数字化背景下德国消费者保护法的新发展——德国〈公平消费者合同法〉评述与启示》，《德国研究》2023年第1期，第107-126页。
6 温世扬：《〈民法典〉合同履行规则检视》，《浙江工商大学学报》2020年第6期，第6-17页。
7 最高人民法院民法典贯彻实施工作领导小组主编：《中华人民共和国民法典合同编理解与适用（一）》，北京：人民法院出版社，2020年。
8 陈甦主编：《民法总则评注》（下册），北京：法律出版社，2017年。
9 王利明主编：《中国民法典释评：合同编·通则》，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2020年。
10 美］加里·施耐德：《电子商务》（原书第12版），张俊梅、袁勤俭、杨欣悦等译，北京：机械工业出版社，2020年。
11 张乃根：《论国际法在国际秩序中的作用》，《北方法学》2010年第3期，第109-116页。
12 刘颖、何其生：《〈国际合同使用电子通信公约〉对我国电子商务立法的启示》，《暨南学报（哲学社会科学版）》2009年第4期，第67-79页。
13 美］梅尔文·艾森伯格：《合同法基础原理》，孙良国、王怡聪译，北京：北京大学出版社，2023年。
14 Stürner M.， Europ?isches Vertragsrecht， Berlin： De Gruyter， 2021.
15 邢爱芬、付姝菊：《中国电子签名立法与实践问题研究》，《科技与法律》2022年第3期，第14-23页。
16 Schulze R.， Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch： Handkommentar， Baden-Baden： Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft， 2024.
17 郭锋等编著：《中华人民共和国电子商务法法律适用与案例指引》，北京：人民法院出版社，2018年。
18 黄茂荣：《债法通则之一：债之概念与债务契约》，厦门：厦门大学出版社，2014年。
19 徐海明：《中国电子商务法律问题研究》，北京：北京理工大学出版社，2017年。
20 崔聪聪：《论电子商务法的调整对象与适用范围》，《苏州大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2019年第1期，第79-85页。
21 韩世远：《合同法总论》（第四版），北京：法律出版社，2018年。
22 S?cker F. J.， Rixecker R. & Oetker H. et al. （eds.）， Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch， München： C. H. BECK， 2022.
23 薛军：《电子合同成立问题探析》，《法律适用》2021年第3期，第25-33页。
24 全国人大财经委员会电子商务法起草组编著：《中华人民共和国电子商务法条文释义》，北京：法律出版社，2018年。
25 薛虹：《论电子商务合同自动信息系统的法律效力》，《苏州大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2019年第1期，第70-78页。
26 王泽鉴：《债法原理》（2022年重排版），北京：北京大学出版社，2022年。
27 Walker W. D. & Brox H.， Allgemeines Schuldrecht， München： Verlag C. H. Beck GmbH & Co. KG， 2021.
28 朱晓喆：《我国买卖合同风险负担规则的比较法困境——以〈买卖合同司法解释〉第11条、14条为例》，《苏州大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2013年第4期，第82-93页。
29 赵申豪：《网络购物合同的风险负担——“第一承运人规则”适用范围之质疑》，《商业研究》2018年第7期，第133-143页。
30 德］卡尔·拉伦茨：《法学方法论》（全本·第六版），黄家镇译，北京：商务印书馆，2020年。
31 孙海波：《反思以后果为导向的司法裁判思维——探求一种谦抑限制的标准》，《浙江大学学报（人文社会科学 版）》2024年第9期，第111-123页。
32 吴逸越：《论数字产品及其给付规则——以数字内容与数字服务区分为中心》，《财经法学》2024年第5期，第78-93页。 |
|
|
|
2025, Vol. 55 
