透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.80.173.25
  • 學位論文

定型化契約條款審閱期間之研究

A Study on Reviewing Period of Standard Form Contract Terms

指導教授 : 陳忠五
若您是本文的作者,可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。

摘要


現代社會中,以締結定型化契約方式契約之情形十分普遍,因定型化契約帶來大量、迅速締約之效率優勢,對促進經濟發展、商業繁榮實有其益處。然此種締約方式蘊含雙方欠缺磋商過程、交涉機會以及嚴重資訊地位落差之問題,對定型化契約相對人而言,契約自由難以彰顯。為實現契約自由,定型化契約之程序管制有其必要,而程序管制重點在於定型化契約條款應在何種程序下訂入契約、如何在締約過程中確保定型化契約相對人之締約意思決定係出於充分資訊。 消費者保護法第11條之1為審閱期間之規定,要求定型化契約使用人應提供定型化契約相對人合理期間審閱條款,未經審閱之條款不構成契約內容,係為保障定型化契約相對人有機會理解條款,屬於程序管制之一環。其理論基礎在於締約階段之資訊提供義務,係基於雙方資訊不對稱之問題以及締約階段之誠信原則而來,在規範功能上係充實定型化契約相對人理解資訊之時間,應屬建構優質締約環境之重要環節。 基於締約階段資訊提供義務之理論基礎,應認為審閱期間之適用範圍應不限於消費性定型化契約,在非消費性定型化契約中亦有此種平衡雙方締約地位不對等之需求,且民法對於定型化契約並無程序管制規定,宜認為消費者保護法審閱期間規定應可類推適用至非消費性定型化契約。而並非預先擬定之個別磋商條款,則不適用審閱期間規定。 而關於審閱期間之適用要件,提供審閱之方式應係無條件提供審閱、提示全部條款內容及契約相關文件並告知審閱權利;其對象以締約當事人為主、且應於締約前提供。而提供期間長短,主要基於主管機關公告內容,但目前已公告之審閱期間長短,則有部分契約類型期間過短、不同契約類型間期間長短失衡之情況。 如違反審閱期間規定,消費者保護法規定之效果係未經審閱之條款不構成契約內容,然在實務上主張不易係與定型化契約相對人預先拋棄、已具有專業能力或已充分知悉或主張時點過晚等因素相關。然基於審閱期間係程序管制之立場,應認為係提供給一般平均智識能力之大眾為標準,且應採取形式審閱觀點,重點在於給予瞭解之機會而不論是否實際已瞭解,而不應與實體管制觀點相混淆,以發揮審閱期間之制度功能。此外審閱期間係為保障定型化契約相對人之締約意思決定之實質契約自由,且係資訊提供義務之一環,是以違反審閱期間亦有民法上撤銷意思表示、請求損害賠償等等規定之討論空間。 定型化契約之程序管制對於實現契約之程序正義甚為重要,應使審閱期間能發揮其獨立制度功能,使定型化契約相對人得以在具有瞭解資訊之機會下為締約意思決定,進而促進契約自由之落實。

並列摘要


Standard form contract, which is common in modern society transaction, brings market advantage of mass contract and lower transaction cost, and effectively improves ecomomic efficiency and promotes economic development. However, because the process of making standard form contract lacks negotiation and exists severe gap of information between two parties, it will bring out an acute problem of abuses of freedom of contract to the weaker party. To achieve freedom of contract, procedural control of standard form contract is crucial and necessary. The emphasis is on the incorporation of standard form contract terms and how to ensure the weaker party has enough information to make the decision of making a contract or not. According to Article 11-1 of Consumer Protection Act, the stronger party shall provide a reasonable period for the weaker party to review all standard form contract terms, before entering into a standard form contract. Furthermore, where standard form contract terms in violation of reviewing period shall not constitute part of the contract. The core purpose of Article 11-1 is to ensure that the weaker party has the opportunity to understand terms, and Article 11-1 is part of procedural control. The theoretical basis of reviewing period is the obligation to provide information of the stronger party before entering into a standard contract. It is mostly based on problems of information asymmetry and principle of good faith. Also, the function of reviewing period is to give the weaker party time to understand information that is provided. As a matter of fact, it plays a vital role in making a contract. Since the theoretical basis of reviewing period is the obligation to provide information, not only consumer standard form contract but also non-consumer standard form contract can apply to reviewing period, because in non-consumer standard form contract, unfairness and inequity exist too. Moreover, in Civil Law, there are no procedural control of standard form contract. This implies that we should make application of reviewing period, Article 11-1 of Consumer Protection Act, by analogy to non-consumer standard form contract, but not to individually negotiated terms. On legal requirement of reviewing period, it should be provided unconditionally, disclosing all terms and other related documents and informing the right to review. What is more, it should mainly be provided to the weaker party and before entering into a standard form contract. In addition, the central competent authority may proclaim the appropriate contract reviewing period. However, there are problems like reviewing period proclaimed is not long enough, or inequity in different types of standard form contract. In violation of reviewing period, according to Article 11-1 of Consumer Protection Act, the terms shall not constitute part of the contract. However, it is not easy to claim in practice. The difficulties of the claim are mostly due to judicial opinions that confused procedural control with substantive controls. Based on the fact that reviewing period is a kind of procedural control, we should take the point of view of formal review. The emphasis is on that the weaker party have the opportunity to review, not actually reviewed or not. Thus, reviewing period system will become more effective. In addition, because that reviewing period is for the purpose of protecting the freedom of contract of the weaker party, and it is part of obligation to provide information. Then, in violation of reviewing period, the weaker party may be able to revoke the expression or claim for compensation for damages. The procedural control of standard form contract is crutial to procedural justice of contract, we should make reviewing period system more effective and efficient. Then we can essure the weaker party can make a standard form contract with the opportunity to access to information, and achieve the freedom of contract.

參考文獻


 簡資修(2012)。〈保護他人之法律,所為何來?-最高法院100年度台上字第1012號民事判決評釋〉,《月旦裁判時報》,18期,頁25-31。
 楊淑文(2013)。〈定型化契約之管制與契約自由-德國與我國法制發展之比較分析〉,《政大法學評論》,132期,頁163-213。
 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51-120。
 戴豪君(2000)。〈電子商務紀元消費者保護法律課題(下)〉,《科技法律透析》,2000年6月,頁44-61。
 詹森林(2014)。〈消費者保護法發展專題回顧:定型化契約之理論與實務發展〉,《臺大法學論叢》,43卷特刊,頁1345-1389。

延伸閱讀