健身中心定型化契約應記載及不得記載事項之新規定回溯適用問題探討──台灣台南地方法院112 年度南消小字第10 號民事判決評析

The Retroactivity of the New Regulations on Mandatory and Prohibitory Provisions of Standard Contracts for Fitness Centers: An Analysis of Civil Judgment 112-Nan- Xiao-Xiao-Zi-10 of the Taiwan Tainan District Court

定型化契約之應記載及不得記載事項，為具有私法上效力之法規命令，除具有預先審查業界使用之定型化契約條款是否顯失公平外，亦具有規範當事人契約權利義務關係之效力。消費性定型化契約雖在應記載及不得記載事項新規定生效前即已成立並生效，惟若新規定之構成要件事實於其生效後始完全實現者，當然有新規定之適用（不真正溯及既往）。此外，若按新規定生效以前之法律狀態可認為有應填補之規範漏洞存在時，亦得將新規定作為民法第1條之「法理」而援用於其生效前之契約關係，以填補其規範漏洞。
另一方面，就新規定生效前之契約，仍可回歸適用消保法第12條之一般規定。此時，法院亦得審酌新規定之規範意旨，審查其生效前之定型化契約條款效力。此外，契約終止係向將來消滅契約之給付義務，當事人就終止前之部分仍應依契約履行其給付義務，故企業經營者並無依折扣前之原價計算終止前消費者對待給付金額之正當理由。更遑論消費者若有疾病、傷害、懷孕、兵役或調職等不可歸責之重大事由時，除有權立即終止契約外（繼續性契約重大事由終止權），企業經營者亦無權主張違約責任或任何補償。定型化契約條款約定以折扣前之原價為終止退費之計算基礎，對消費者當然顯失公平而無效。

The mandatory and prohibitory provisions of standard contracts, within the meaning of Article 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, are administrative regulations with private-law effects. These not only serve the purpose of ex ante review as to whether the standard contract terms used in specific industries are unfair, but also have the effect of regulating the contractual rights and obligations between the parties. Although a standard form consumer contract may have been formed and taken effect prior to the entry into force of the new regulations (regarding mandatory and prohibitory provisions), if the factual prerequisites of the new regulations are fully realized only after their entry into force, the new regulations shall naturally apply (pseudo-retroactivity). Furthermore, if it can be established that a regulatory gap existed under the previous legal regime that needed to be filled, the new regulations may also be applied to contractual relationships formed before their entry into force, as“legal principles”(jurisprudence) pursuant to Article 1 of the Civil Code, in order to fill the said gap.
On the other hand, for contracts entered into before the new regulations took effect, the general provision of Article 12 of the Consumer Protection Act may still apply. In this context, the court may also take into account the regulatory intent underpinning the new regulations to examine the validity of the terms in existing standard contracts. Furthermore, since the termination of a contract only extinguishes contractual obligations prospectively, the parties must still fulfill their performance obligations accrued prior to termination. Therefore, there is no justified reason for the trader to calculate the consumer’s counter-performance prior to termination based on the original, undiscounted price. Not to mention that if consumers terminate the contract for compelling reasons unattributable to them—such as illness, injury, pregnancy, military service, or a job transfer—they should not only have the right to terminate the contract immediately (the right to terminate a continuing contract for compelling reasons), but the trader also has no right to claim for breach of contract or any compensation. Standard contract terms stipulating that the original, undiscounted price shall serve as the basis for calculating refunds upon termination are clearly unfair to consumers and therefore invalid.