我國通說在法律概念上,並不區分民法第二四七條之一的附合契約,與消費者保護法第十一條以下之定型化契約二者,並認為民法第二四七條之一因其法律文字較為抽象、籠統,故關於其解釋適用,應參酌消費者保護法第十二條較為明確、具體之規定。本文嘗試從學理與最高法院的實務見解出發,指出現行法所界定之附合契約與定型化契約二者,實為不同的法律概念。近來我國法在此基礎上,分別就規律消費關係之定型化契約條款、與規範非消費關係之附合契約條款,發展出一套寬嚴有別的審查基準,提供交易相對人不同程度的保護。此一區別性的規範體例,係基於當事人締約地位之差距而異其保護強度,體現「事物性質不同,應予差別待遇」之理念,具有本土法學的特色,值得重視。
The purpose of this article, which is divided into four parts, is to comparer the concept of general conditions of contract, defined by Article 2 (7) of Consumer Protection Law, and the notion of standard terms of Contrat d'adhésionin the sense of Article 247-1 of Civil Code. Following the introduction, Part II examines the nuance in the concepts between general conditions of contract and standard terms of Contrat d'adhésion.Part III explores the main interests of distinction: the application of protective mechanism set out in Article 11-1 of Consumer Protection Law, the range of compensation for damages, the criterion used for assessing unfair terms. Part IV concludes by offering justifications to the distinction between general conditions of contract and standard terms of Contrat d'adhésionin Taiwan.