論訪問交易和無條件解除權之規範與檢討

On the Regulations and Reviews of the Door-to-Door Sales and the Right of Withdrawal

訪問交易賦與消費者無條件解除權，是因為在該情境之下，消費者處於被突襲之無締約心理準備及欠較比較商品之資訊不足的情況下，其締約的實質自由受到妨礙，故須藉由解除權的行使，擺脫契約的拘束。對於前提要件的訪問交易，我國係以消費者住居所為中心的定義方式，故得再搭配未經邀約之無締約心理準備的要件，予以擴展，相較於歐陸所採營業處所外交易之客觀界定方式，執法成本相對較高。另外，現行法關於解除權除斥期間之起算，於適用服務消費時，易有爭議，蓋服務一經接受、即已履行完畢而有返還不能的問題，雖在海外渡假村案例中，過去實務採取自消費者收受休閒旅遊卡時起算的見解，似解決部分問題，但對於其他服務，可否比照辦理，不無疑問，對此，德國民法規定於契約成立時起算，可作為參考。另現行法在通訊交易場合允許合理例外情事以排除無條件解除權的適用，但於訪問交易卻付之闕如，基於利益平衡的考量，似有引進之必要。關於解除權之行使方式上，應以「不要式」為原則，以保護消費者。而行行使費用負擔之問題，因現行法明定消費者無須負擔任何費用及對價，故不致於有適用上的疑義。此外，退回商品的價值減損，現行法未有明確規定，參照外國立法，過度使用的價值減損，消費者仍可行使解除權，但必須負價額償還義務，似為可採之利益平衡作法。最後，關於訪問買賣與消費借貸結合之交易型態，依契約相對性原則，消費者無法援引抗辯對抗提供資金融通的業者，反使消費者更趨於弱勢，故外國法上針對這類具經濟上一體性的結合交易，引進抗辯權延伸及撤回權延伸的模式，使消費者得以之對抗融資提供者，為避免適用上的爭議，宜修法增訂之，以明確保護資力不足的弱勢消費者。

The right of withdrawal is justified in door-to-door sales because of the ill-informed from the foray situation and insufficient information on the compared goods. The consumers are endowed with the right of withdrawal in order to regain the material freedom of contract. As far as the door-to-door sales are concerned, they are defined by the consumer's residence, workplace, public places or any other places and extended with the non-solicitation of consumers. In contrast to the provision in European nations which the concept of off-premise is introduced only, the costs in law enforcement in our law are higher than those nations. Besides, the calculation of cooling-off period is a controversial issue when the service contracts are concerned. Because the service is taken, it is difficult to recover. Our courts, therefore, in club med overseas cases consider that it is begun when the consumer accepted the member card. But it is controversial when other services outside the club med are concerned. Therefore the provision in Germany Civil Code which it starts when the service contract is concluded can serve as a reference. While the reasonable matters are allowed in the distance sales, the exceptions of the right to withdrawal are lacked in the door-to-door sales. It should be considered in door-to-door sales from the view point of the interest balances. As to the exercise of withdrawal right, the oral express is enough to protect the consumer. The consumers bear no cost of exercise right, because the text meaning is clear. The diminution in value of the returned goods should be compensated by consumers when they return the goods in overuse. The rules of interest balance in foreign laws could be imitated. When the combination of the door-to-door sales and the finance of banks are concerned, the consumers could use the defense against the goods supplier, but they could not use it against the credit provider because of the relativity of contract. To overcome the difficult problem of this new is sue, it should extend the defense right through the relativity of party in order to against the credit providers. So the rules in the foreign laws should be introduced in order to protect the weak consumers.