論我國消費者保護法第51條過失之意義-從懲罰性賠償之特性出發

A Study on the Meaning of Negligence in the Article 51 of Consumer Protection Law of R.O.C - From the Features of Punitive Damages

王薇葦(Wei-Wei Wang)

指導教授 ： 陳乃瑜

中原大學/商學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2014年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu201400376

摘要

我國近年伴隨著現代社會多元化之趨勢，以及民眾權利意識覺醒，各種新穎消費型態蓬勃，消費者保護意識日益高漲。於此背景下，近日數起重大消費者權益危害事件引人注目，對於不肖經營者之嚇阻有其必要性，關於消費者保護法制即有再檢討之空間。本文所欲探究之主題，係關於消費者保護法第51條之懲罰性賠償，其主觀要件於適用上之探究，而本文之問題意識既源於現行實務見解認定上之矛盾，故本文之研究取向主要仍偏重現行法之解釋論問題，亦即以現行消費者保護法第51條但書之過失是否應為目的性限縮為討論中心。對此，本文從探究民法上過失之意義與本質著手，再回頭思考繼受自英美法之懲罰性賠償制度，其所欲達成之功能究竟為何之問題，進一步介紹美國懲罰性賠償制度之發展，並儘可能的聚焦於該國法制對於懲罰性賠償之主觀要件設定，期能尋獲值得我國實務解釋論借鏡之處。而在文末，本文綜合前述研究所得，認為關於消費者保護法第51條但書中，所謂之過失，於解釋論上應目的性限縮為重大過失，而立法論上亦宜明定。由於本文之主要議題於實務見解尚未見統一，有徵引外國立法例及回頭思索懲罰性損害賠償法制之功能，綜合分析後以尋求相對合理之解答之必要，故本論文除探尋理論上趣味外，亦可略為自豪於試圖解決實務問題之雄心壯志。

關鍵字

消費者保護法第51條 ； 懲罰性賠償 ； 重大過失

並列摘要

With the diverse trends in modern society, various types of new consumption patterns have emerged. In addition, the awakening of public awareness of rights in Taiwan, in recent years, has resulted in a growing increase in the awareness of consumer protection laws. Against this background, several recent major incidents that have harmed the interests of consumers have attracted great attention. It is important to deter unscrupulous businesses, and there is room for existing consumer protection laws to be reviewed further. The objective of this article is to discuss the punitive damages in Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Law, in particular to make an inquiry into the application of its subjective elements. The appreciation of the issues in this paper originated from contradictions in the current practices and opinions. Therefore, the direction of the research, in this paper, mainly focuses on the interpretative issues in the existing law, that is, the discussion centers on whether negligence in the proviso of Article 51 of the existing Consumer Protection Law should be given a purposive interpretation. In this regard, this article first probes the meaning and essence of negligence in civil law, followed by reflections on questions relating to the intended functions of the punitive damages system adopted from Anglo-American law. Subsequently, a further introduction on the development of the American punitive damages system is provided, focusing on the establishment of the subjective elements of punitive damages by the legal system in the U.S., to identify aspects that may be a worthy reference for practical interpretation purposes in Taiwan. Based on the aforementioned research, this paper concludes that the so-called negligence referred to in Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Law should be given a purposive interpretation in order to restrict it to gross negligence, and this interpretation should also be explicitly specified in legislative theory. Considering this, previous research on the main topics in this paper has yet to arrive at a unified opinion in terms of practical insights, it is necessary to cite foreign legislation and to reflect on the function of punitive damages in legal systems, to provide a relatively rational explanation based on comprehensive analyses of the above. Therefore, in addition to exploring theoretical interests, this paper may also attempt to solve practical issues.

並列關鍵字

Negligence ； Punitive Damages ； Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Law

參考文獻

21.陳聰富，論侵權行為法上之過失概念-最高法院九十年度台上字第一六八二號民事判決評析，臺大法學論叢，第三十三卷第四期，頁145-204(2004)。

20.陳聰富，美國法上之懲罰性賠償金制度，臺大法學論叢，第三十一卷第五期，頁163-219(2002)。

6.何建志，懲罰性賠償金之法理與應用－論最適賠償金額之判定，台大法學論叢，第三十一卷第三期，頁237-289 (2002)。

28.謝哲勝，懲罰性賠償，臺大法學論叢，第三十卷第一期，頁113-161(2001)。

18.陳聰富，民法研究會第九次研討—美國懲罰性賠償金的發展趨勢—改革運動與實證研究的對峙，法學叢刊，第169期，頁97-115(1998)。