預付式消費服務合同中拒絕受領的法律效果

The Legal Effects for Rejection of Acceptance in Consumer Contract of Service by Payment in Advance

在預付式消費服務合同中，經營者提供的格式條款載明“消費者單方終止消費，則預付款項不予退還”內容時，其屬於我國《合同法》及《消費者權益保護法》規定的格式條款無效情形。如若消費者無正當理由地單方終止消費，並造成服務提供不能履行時，應依服務合同上的價金風險負擔規則，肯定經營者繼續享有報酬請求權。在合同約定消費者應負受領配合的義務時，消費者拒絕受領的行為同時成立違約責任，在違約損害賠償範圍的劃定上，應受可預見性規則、過失相抵規則、減輕損失規則及損益相抵規則的調節。在評價拒絕受領行為的法律效果時，應將價金風險負擔與違約責任區分考察，不宜混同。我國司法實踐對於請求權基礎思維方式的運用，仍然亟待加強。本案裁判雖有較大偏誤，但亦有可肯定之處，同時遺留下諸多問題有待將來理論與實踐的發展。

In the consumer contract of service by payment in advance, if the standard clauses supplied by the enterprise present the contents that in case of the consumers unilateral termination the prepayment will not be refunded, this falls into the scope of avoidance of standard clauses stipulated by our countrys the Law of Contract and the Law of Protection for Consumers Rights. If consumers terminate the consumption unilaterally without justification which makes it impossible for the services to be provided, the enterprises right on payment should be maintained according to the risk assumption rule of payment in service contract. In case that the consumers duty of acceptance and cooperation has been appointed, the consumers rejection of acceptance would commit liability for breach of contract. The determination on the scope of compensation should be adjusted by the foreseeability rule, contributory negligence rule, mitigation rule and the collateral resource rule. When determining the legal effects for rejection of acceptance, the line should be dropped between the riskassumptionrule and the liability for breach instead of confusion. The mode of thinking via Anpruchsgrundlagen in our countrys juridical practice still need to be strengthened. Despite the fact that this case is notably judged in a wrong way, there exists however still some aspects to be appreciated, and at the same time many problems have been remained to be developed by the legal theory and practice in the future.