B2c電子商務標價錯誤法律效力之研究

The Legal Effect of Price Marking Mistake in B2C Electronic Commerce

朱義芬(Yi-Fen Chu)

《真理財經法學》 7期 (2011/09) Pp. 37-85

摘要

不受時空限制之電子商務提供了眾人便捷的購物環境，尤其B2C的市場交易量，逐年遞增，却也衍生了許多新問題，其中因「網路價格標示錯誤」所發生之爭議屢有所聞，而「戴爾電腦案」尤其引人矚目，企業經營者與消費者爭執的重心，主要有二：第一、雙方契約是否成立；第二、契約即使成立，業者能否撤銷其錯誤之標價或主張消費者權利濫用、違反誠信原則而拒絕履行契約。實務上，學者間對此均有不同見解。同時，主管機關在參酌國外法規著手法規之增修，賦予雙方當事人於締約過程中有修正錯誤之機制，如消費者保護法修正草案第18條、電子簽章法修正草案第16條等，並依法規授權，已於今年元旦生效之「零售業網路交易定型化契約應記載事項與不得記載事項」，規定雙方因錯誤之意思表示在尋求訴訟途徑之前，予以補救之機會。本文在參酌實務見解、學者觀點及國外經驗，基於雙方利益平衡、風險均分之考量，提出個人見解，期盼對此議題之解決有所助益。

關鍵字

要約 ； 要約引誘 ； 標價錯誤

並列摘要

Electronic commerce provides people with a convenient shopping environment, which is not limited by time and space. However, controversies within its operation increase along the yearly enlarging market of the B2C. Among those controversies, price mislisting of online shopping stores is the issue which occurs most frequently. For example, the wrong price marking event of the Dell computer in 2010 attracted major public attention. Business operators and consumers hold conflicting perspectives regarding the controversy. The first legal issue within the controversy is whether the contract is formed or not. The second legal issue is whether online shopping stores have the right to revoke their promise on the ground of acting under a mistake���� The third legal issue is whether consumers abuse their rights and contradict the principles of honesty and good faith, therefore the stores has the right to rescind the contract? There are conflicting opinions among the judiciary and scholars regarding above mentioned issues. The competent authorities start to draft legislation regarding the dispute, referring to foreign legislation. For instance, the draft revision of the article 18 of the Consumer Protection Law and the draft revision of Draft article 16 of the Electronic Signature Act are under discussion to resolve the dispute. Additionally, the administrative order of ＂Regulations Governing particulars to be specified in retail online trading Standard Contract＂ takes effect on January 1, 2011. It specifies that above mentioned dispute resolution mechanism before litigation should be identified in the contract. I summarized perspectives from practitioners , scholars , foreign legislation and theories. Personal opinion ,based on the previous summary, is provided in order to resolve the price mislisting issue properly.

並列關鍵字

offer ； invitation to offer ； price error