Study On Civil Liability For Breach Of Disclosure Obligation Of Financial Product Transaction

With the continuous development of the economy,the scale of financial services provided to consumers by financial institutions is becoming more and more extensive.Due to financial products and services’ complex and diverse characteristics,related disputes are also increasing.The promulgation of the Jiu Min Ji Yao lets the disclosure obligation becoming more understood by financial consumers,and provide guidelines for financial consumers who are in a weak position.In the first chapter of this article,through the collation and analysis of practical cases,in the application of disclosure obligation,there are issues related to constitutive requirements,nature determination,compensation standards,etc.Therefore,it is the focus of this article.The second chapter first reveals the system positioning of the disclosure obligation,explains the filling of disclosure obligation based on the good faith principle to the premise of information asymmetry under the request of "the seller is responsible,and let the buyer beware",sorts out the source of the relevant laws,and anticipates the future of unified norms.Secondly,the content of disclosure obligation will be analyzed in detail: the risk reveals should be fully clarified,and operating specific standards should request that the results of the maximum income and maximum loss risk shall be notified.The disclosure and explanation of information can refer to dynamic system theory,satisfy the balance of payment requirements,ensuring that consumers notice the content of important terms.The information asymmetry of proposed obligations is different from the one of disclosure obligation,so it is not recommended to be included.Appropriateness obligation differs from disclosure obligation at the level of legal purpose and specific types.The third chapter is based on the perspective of the obligation-responsibility system,sorts out whether disclosure obligation is recognized as pre-contract obligations,follow-up obligations or statutory obligations,figures out that it is pre-contract obligations generated from contract negotiation and trust enhancement.In terms of the selection of relief paths,there are logical obstacles to claiming the self-selling agency are responsible for breach of contract.Financial consumers require that the responsibility for negligence of contracts is more in line with the requirements of different levels of roads and different scope of compensation should be set to different responsibilities of related parties.Advocating the responsibility of consignment organization for negligence of contracts can be explained by expanding the concept of the provisions ‘parties’,so that it will not violate the requirements of the contract relativity.The fourth chapter firstly define the scope of damage compensation.In terms of proving causality between damage results and damage action,referring to normative teleology is more appropriate than equivalence.The scope of trust damage for the loss of liability for contractual negligence shall include this non-typical situation of the rejuvenation of unfavorable contracts.When judging actual losses,all the principal payments should not be considered to cause the effect of rigid payment,but there are problems with the rationality of the setting of corresponding interest compensation to the principal compensation.There is a certain loophole in the application of contributory negligence to contractual negligence,but the tendency of the legislators for its wide use can be inferred,so it should be strictly restricted in terms of application but not totally rejected.In terms of the application of punitive damages,the source is the regulation of consumer fraud,which is different from the nature of civil rights remedies.Based on practical considerations,the usual triple punitive damages are not particularly applicable,and the means of administrative supervision should be returned and valued.