| 英文摘要 |
Advertising statements made by traders form a crucial basis for consumers’decisions to enter into the contracts. To safeguard legitimate consumer expectations arising from such advertisements and to preserve consumers’freedom of choice, Section 22 of the Consumer Protection Act incorporates the principle of good faith, binding traders to their advertising content after the conclusion of the contract. However, exceptions exist where this binding effect may be excluded, particularly when the consumer’s freedom of choice remains unimpaired—for instance, following a timely correction. Similarly, deviating agreements aimed at preserving contractual flexibility may supersede advertising claims, provided they satisfy transparency requirements.
This article analyzes comparable legal mechanisms in European and German law—specifically the“binding effect of public statements”and the“incorporation of pre-contractual information”—to offer recommendations for the interpretation and future amendment of Section 22. Furthermore, while certain Supreme Court decisions in Taiwan have held that advertising statements merely constitute an invitatio ad offerendum (invitation to treat) and lack contractual weight unless expressly incorporated it during negotiations, the prevailing view in Germany differs. In German law, absent specific error or modifications, opinion, a party’s advertising statements are generally integrated into the contract through implied agreement or as relevant context for contractual interpretation. Drawing upon this comparative analysis, this article proposes specific suggestions for advancing Taiwanese legal theory and judicial practice. |
