| 英文摘要 |
Several expressions regarding the fair and reasonable principle exist both in the Civil Procedural Law and out-of-court alternative dispute resolutions. For example, Section 3 of Article 377-1 and Article 436-14 of the Civil Procedural Law, Article 1 of the Compulsory Enforcement Law, Article 19 of the Town Ship of Mediation Law, Article 6 of the Government Procurement Law, Article 31 of Arbitration Law, etc. The principle’s function lies across substantial laws as well as judicial adjudications, including contract construction, application of law rules, exceptional limitation based on fairness consideration, allocation of burden of proof, evidence investigation, etc. Referencing to the financial ombudsman scheme in the UK, the Section 1, Article 20 of Taiwan’s Financial Consumer Protection Law expressly stated that the financial ombudsman’s decision should be made based on the fair and reasonable principle. Due to the variety of financial products and characteristics of financial disputes, the Financial Ombudsman Service (UK) has developed specific practice when handling financial disputes, no matter the court will make the same judgment or not. Through comparative case study with typology methods, the essay evaluates under what circumstances and to what extent the fair and reasonable principle should be applied when imposing liabilities to financial institutions. Several inductive operation standards are then given for practice use. |
