預付型交易之消費者保護

The Consumer Protection for Prepaid Transactions

消保法第17條第1項第3款規定授權中央主管機關，於預付型交易得要求企業經營者給出履約擔保。透過這項回復任意擔保機制（同時履行抗辯權與報酬後付原則）之規範設計，晚近已鮮有惡性倒閉之消費糾紛。在諸多定型化契約，消保法與最高法院均允許消費者隨時終止繼續性、繼續供給性之消費者，契約，如此不僅可維護、貫徹消費者意志下之人格保護，亦可使消費者擺脫喪」失任意擔保狀態。德國法上，倘若排除或限制同時履行抗辯權之一般條款，已達到完全喪失擔保功能地步時，該條款原則無效，僅於若干例外情形有效。透過這項契約條款之內容控制，消費者甚至得請求返還已支付之價金或報酬，迫使企業經營者提供消費者內容上更妥當之定性化契約。本文目的在於，盡量完整呈現消保法關於預付型交易之規範設計，以及消保法與民法之關聯。

Subparagraph 3, Paragraph 1 of Article 17 under the Consumer Protection Act states that central government authority may request traders to provide performance guarantee for prepaid transactions. By restoring the mechanism of arbitrary guarantee (the concurrent performance counterplea and post-performance payment), consumer disputes resulting from involuntary bankruptcies have greatly decreased. In addition, regarding a variety of standardized contracts, the foregoing Act and the Supreme Court have allowed consumers to terminate a continuous or continuous supply consumer contracts at any time. This not only protects consumers’ moral rights but also frees them from the loss of arbitrary guarantee. Under German law, a general provision excluding or restricting concurrent performance counterplea to the extent that the function of guarantee has almost lost will generally be deemed void with only a few exceptions. With this control of content, consumer may even seek repayment for the transaction amounts or remunerations, forcing traders to provide more consumer-friendly standardized contracts. The purpose of this Article is to make a great effort to present the Consumer Protection Act’s regulatory design for prepaid transactions and the relationship between the said Act and the Civil Code.