论文部分内容阅读
质量保证期依托于买卖双方约定的期限担保合同或者条款而存在,保质期、保修期、“三包”期与质量保证期并不存在本质上的不同,属于质量保证期在不同场合的不同称呼。质量保证期的起算点为标的物被交付之日,其时长通过当事人的约定来确定,但在立法上规定了最低要求的,如“三包”期、保质期、保修期等,相关约定则不得低于该相关标准。其法律效力与瑕疵异议期相同,与瑕疵违约救济权的生成有关,积极法律效力发生的条件应当仅为标的物在该期间之内出现了瑕疵。尽管瑕疵异议期与质量保证期的法律效力相同,但两者在存在基础、法律效力的实现条件及起算点、时长的确定等方面均存在不同,因此不能将两者混同。由于诉讼时效的法律效力与瑕疵违约救济权的行使而非瑕疵违约救济权的生成有关,因此也不能将诉讼时效与质量保证期混同。
The quality guarantee period relies on the term guarantee contract or terms agreed upon by the seller and the seller. There are no essential differences between the warranty period, the warranty period, the three guarantees period and the quality guarantee period, which are different from each other in the quality assurance period call. The starting point of the quality guarantee period is the date of delivery of the subject matter, the duration of which is determined by the parties’ agreement, but the minimum requirements in the legislation, such as the “Three Guarantees” period, the shelf life, the warranty period, the relevant provisions It shall not be lower than the relevant standard. Its legal effect is the same as that of the defect opposition period, which is related to the creation of the right of remedy for the default of the defect. The conditions for the active legal effect shall only be the defects of the subject matter during the period. Although the legal validity of the opposition period and the quality guarantee period are the same, there are differences between the two in terms of existence basis, the conditions for the realization of legal validity, the starting point and the determination of duration. Therefore, the two can not be mixed. As the legal effect of the statute of limitation is related to the exercise of the right to remedy the default, not to the creation of the remedy of the right to remedy the default, the limitation of action can not be confused with the quality guarantee period.