論消費服務合同中消費者任意解除權的法理基礎與法律效果

消費服務合同兼具服務合同與消費者合同的雙重屬性，該複合結構一方面放大了消費者在締約階段對服務質量與適配性的事前評價困難，另一方面又使其在履行過程中持續暴露於受領障礙等相關風險中，從而導致消費者與經營者在“給付不確定性”以及“受領障礙所致解約風險分配的不確定性”上存在顯著失衡。為矯正這種雙重失衡，應賦予消費者一般性任意解除權，並將其賠償責任限定在經營者伴隨合同解除通常所生的“平均損害”。該賠償責任的性質應界定為旨在恢復經營者未締約時利益狀態的“信賴利益賠償”。在此框架下，消費者的賠償責任範圍應結合解除事由與解除時點進行類型化判斷，以實現經營者損失回復與消費者責任限制之間的平衡。《民法典》第933條可作為消費者任意解除情形下損害賠償的請求權基礎，以回應當前立法規範缺位下的規則適配需求。

Consumer service contracts possess the dual attributes of service contracts and consumer contracts. This composite structure, on the one hand, amplifies the consumer's difficulty in making ex ante assessments of service quality and suitability at the contract formation stage; on the other hand, it exposes the consumer, during the course of performance, to continuing risks such as impediments to acceptance. As a result, there exists a significant imbalance between consumers and business operators with respect to the“uncertainty of performance”and the“uncertainty in the allocation of rescission risks arising from impediments to acceptance.”To correct this dual imbalance, consumers should be granted a general discretionary right of termination, and their liability for damages should be limited to the“average loss”typically incurred by the operator as a consequence of termination. The nature of such liability should be characterized as“reliance damages,”aimed at restoring the operator to the position it would have occupied had the contract not been concluded. Within this framework, the scope of the consumer's liability should be typologically determined by reference to the grounds for termination and the timing thereof, so as to achieve a balance between compensating the operator's losses and limiting the consumer's responsibility. Article 933 of the Civil Code may serve as the legal basis for claims for damages in cases of discretionary termination by consumers, thereby addressing the need for rule adaptation in the context of current legislative gaps.