月旦知識庫
  1. 熱門:
 
首頁 臺灣期刊   法律   公行政治   醫學   財經   社會學   教育   其他 大陸期刊   核心   非核心 DOI文章
篇名
個別磋商條款的效力──最高法院107年度台上字第1402號判決評釋
並列篇名
The Validity of Customer-Focused Clauses-The Interpretation of (2008) TW Supreme Court (appeal) No. 1402
作者 謝哲勝
中文摘要 消費者保護法第15條規定:「定型化契約中之定型化契約條款牴觸個別磋商條款之約定者,其牴觸部分無效。」就該條的解釋適用,學說和實務有不同見解,著重契約自由原則與文義解釋者,認為個別磋商條款原則上優先於定型化契約條款而適用;著重消費者保護者,認為該條應目的性限縮,只適用於定型化契約條款內容較個別磋商條款不利消費者時。本件判決認為本件預售屋買受人於知情下所為的個別磋商條款,雖對消費者不利,仍難謂為無效。本文贊同此判決見解並加以闡揚。
英文摘要 The article 15 of the Consumer Protection Act provides:’ Any standard terms and conditions shall be null and void when it is contradicted to individually negotiated terms.’ here are several different interpretations to this article among scholars and practitioners. Those who focus on the freedom of contract and textual interpretation hold that individually negotiated terms shall be valid. Those who focus on consumer protection hold that individually negotiated terms shall be valid on the condition that standardized terms are not favorable to consumers. In this decision, the Supreme Court held that the buyer of the presale apartment, knowing the standardized terms, signed on the individually negotiated terms, though the individually negotiated terms are not favorable to the consumer, and the individually negotiated terms shall not be null and void. This article agrees the opinion of the Supreme Court decision and expound and propagate it.
起訖頁 172-178
關鍵詞 個別磋商條款定型化契約消費者保護法第15條契約自由應記載事項不得記載事項Customer-Focused ClausesIndividually Negotiated TermsStandardized ContractThe Art. 15 of the Consumer Protection ActFreedom of ContractShould be Included ClausesShould Not be Included Clauses
刊名 月旦法學雜誌
出版單位 元照出版公司
期數 202208 (327期)
DOI 10.53106/1025593132709  複製DOI  DOI申請
QRCode
 



讀者服務專線:+886-2-23756688 傳真:+886-2-23318496
地址:臺北市館前路28 號 7 樓 客服信箱
Copyright © 元照出版 All rights reserved. 版權所有,禁止轉貼節錄