透過您的圖書館登入
IP:18.209.66.87
  • 學位論文

契約解消權與消費者解約權之比較-以歐洲契約法為中心

A Comparison of Termination and Withdrawal in Contract Law: A Focus on European Contract Law

指導教授 : 陳聰富

摘要


本文目標是藉由比較法的方式,來對我國契約解消權及消費者解約權(為特殊的契約解消權)提出修法建議。首先,比較各立法例契約解消權之規定;第二,比較各立法例消費者解約權之規定;第三,比較契約解消權與消費者解約權之規定。在比較的過程中,本文將先整理並簡述各立法例間之差異,再就具重要性之議題為討論和研究,最後則對我國法提出建議或檢討。 在比較各立法例契約解消權之規定後,本文對我國法提出以下建議:第一,契約解消權應採以「契約之違反」為核心之統一體系,且不應以「歸責事由」為要件。縱我國法損害賠償以「歸責事由」為要件,然而契約解消與損害賠償兩者目的不同,契約解消非需亦以「歸責事由」為要件,BGB亦是如此規定;第二,我國法應規定「預示重大債務不履行」為履行期前之契約解消事由,此亦可解決實務上之「預示給付拒絕」的問題;第三,在可合理地認為債務人將有重大債務不履行,並且債權人已請求擔保而無效果時,我國法應規定「未就履行提出擔保」為履行期前之契約解消事由,蓋一方面我國民法第265條所繼受之BGB及瑞士債務法均已修法,另一方面則是保護債權人對其債權之合理期待。 在比較各立法例消費者解約權之規定後,本文對我國消費者保護法修正條文提出以下檢討:第一,我國法應將消費者契約法規範於民法內。本文亦對消費者解約權於民法內應規定之處,嘗試提出淺見;第二,除通訊交易外,消費者保護法修正條文亦應有訪問交易消費者解約權例外事由之規定,即在訪問交易中,當消費者解約權會產生過大的成本(副作用)時,即應排除消費者解約權之適用,由「契約管制」回到「契約自由原則」;第三,我國消費者保護法修正條文規定「違反消費者解約權告知義務將延後消費者解約權期間終止日」及「消費者解約權最長期間限制」,應值贊同。 在比較契約解消權與消費者解約權之規定後,本文對我國法提出以下建議:第一,契約解消權應對消費者買賣契約為保護消費者之特別規定,例如放寬消費者解消契約之要件;第二,在消費者與企業經營者成立買賣或服務契約,並同時與金融機構成立消費借貸契約來支付價款的情形中,我國法應規定消費者對買賣或服務契約行使契約解消權或消費者解約權之效力會及於消費借貸契約,並由金融機構負擔企業經營者價金返還不能之風險,來因應我國實務上常見的此類消費糾紛。 最後,本文則簡述「一般契約法與消費者契約法間之差異」,並論述「消費者契約法將來對一般契約法之影響」。

並列摘要


The aim of this book is to make suggestions for termination and withdrawal, a special termination, in Taiwan law by using the comparative legal methodology. It involves a comparison of termination in PECL, DCFR, BGB, CRD and Taiwan law, a comparison of withdrawal in PECL, DCFR, BGB, CRD and Taiwan law and a comparison between termination and withdrawal. In the process of comparing, this book will set out the differences in PECL, DCFR, BGB, CRD and Taiwan law, then have discussions on the important issues, finally make suggestions or comments for Taiwan law. After having a comparison of termination, there are several suggestions for Taiwan Civil Code. First, termination should be based on the breach of contract and not on whether the debtor is imputed. Even though damages is based on whether the debtor is imputed, termination which has a different aim needn’t be based on that, for example BGB. Secondly, anticipated fundamental non-performance should be the ground for termination in Taiwan law. It can deal with the problem of anticipatory repudiation in practice. Thirdly, Taiwan law should allow termination for inadequate assurance of performance when there is a reasonable belief of anticipated fundamental non-performance and assurance is sought, because Art 321 BGB and Art 83 Swiss Code of Obligations which Art 265 Taiwan civil code is based on both have been modified and it can protect the expectation of the creditor. After having a comparison of withdrawal, there are several comments for the revised Taiwan Consumer Protection Law. First, consumer contract law should be integrated into Civil Code. This book set out the position where withdrawal should be located in Taiwan Civil Code. Secondly, in addition to distance contract, the revised Taiwan Consumer Protection Law should provide that there are exceptions to the right of withdrawal in door-to-door contract. When the cost of withdrawal exceeds the benefit of withdrawal in door-to-door contract, a consumer shouldn’t have the right of withdrawal and the restriction on freedom of contract should be removed. Thirdly, it is preferable that Taiwan Consumer Protection Law provides that the breach of the information duties on the right of withdrawal will extend the withdrawal period and there is a maximum period of the withdrawal. After having a comparison between termination and withdrawal, there are two suggestions for Taiwan law. First, there should be special rules of termination for consumer sales contract, for example making termination easier for a consumer. Secondly, Taiwan law should provide that when a consumer concludes a sales or service contract with a business and concludes a credit contract with a bank to finance the sales or service contract, if the consumer exercises the right of termination or withdrawal from the sales or service contract, the effects of termination or withdrawal extend to the credit contract. The bank should undertake the risk that the business cannot return the payment of money. Finally, this book will set out the differences between general contract law and consumer contract law and discuss the interaction between consumer contract law and general contract law in the future.

並列關鍵字

termination non-performance fundamental non-performance rescission withdrawal PECL DCFR BGB CRD

參考文獻


7. 劉志賢(2014)。《契約法定解除之研究》,國立臺灣大學法律學系研究所碩士論文。
5. 陳瑋如(2012)。《我國民法債務不履行類型化之檢討》,國立臺灣大學法律學系研究所碩士論文。
18. 曾品傑(2011)。〈論消費者契約之無條件解除權〉,《政大法學評論》,123期,頁51-113。
16. 陳聰富(2008)。〈誠信原則的理論與實踐〉,《政大法學評論》,104期,頁1-60。
14. 陳自強(2012)。〈未按時給付之契約解除與歸責事由〉,《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》,41卷3期,頁877-930。

延伸閱讀