論消費者保護法第12條關於契約正義規範之法理基礎——從臺北地方法院97年度訴字第3802號判決談起

The Jurisprudence about Justice of Contracts in Consumer Protection Act § 12―Talking from Taiwan Taipei District Court Case of Year 97, No.3802 Su

臺北地方法院97年度訴字第3802號判決，將案件置於社會實境中觀察，本文擬由法理學的角度析論本案。定型化契約條款由一方預先擬定，限縮相對人之契約自由，本案判決中以循環利息之條款可能產生之社會、經濟、道德等問題為導向，論述該條款之不合理。Theodor Viehweg批判概念法學，提倡以問題為導向之辯證術，本文擬溯源自古希臘哲學，探究問題導向式論證的形成。Lon L. Fuller曾提出法律之內在道德性，本案判決以消費者保護法第12條與該條文中內含的「契約正義」與「法經濟分析」檢視定型化契約條款之合理性，似具有以正義為涵藏於條文中之道德的問題意識。本文擬探尋正義之源，並梳理實務對契約正義的闡述，以及在消費者保護法第12條如何具體呈現正義之「公正」、「平等」的內涵。

The thesis would analyze Taiwan Taipei District Court Case of Year 97, No.3802 Su, which put the case in society, with virtue jurisprudence. One drafted the provisions in standard form contracts, restricting the others’ freedom of contracts. In this case, the unreasonable provisions of revolving interests would lead to the problem of society, economics and morality. Professor Theoder Viehweg had criticized the concept of law, and had advocated the problem-oriented argument. My thesis would trace back to ancient Greek philosophy, searching the promotion of it. Professor Lon L. Fuller had said the inner morality of law, in this case, Consumer Protection Act § 12 contained “justice of contracts” and “economic analysis of law”, which the court used to judge whether the provisions in standard form contracts were reasonable or not. There might be conscious that justice was inside the laws. My thesis tried to find the source of justice, the practice of justice in contracts, and the presentation of “fairness”, “equality” in Consumer Protection Act § 12.