English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 91913/122132 (75%)
Visitors : 25803174      Online Users : 300
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/101007


    Title: 網路購物機制之微調─從購物網站標價錯誤之數件判決談起
    Authors: 張瑞星
    Keywords: 網路購物;標價錯誤;要約;要約之引誘;自動回覆確認信函;意思表示錯誤;信賴利益保護
    Online Shopping;Price Error;Offer;Invitation to Offer;Auto-reply System;Errors on Promise;Protection of Reliance Interest
    Date: 2011-06
    Issue Date: 2016-08-31 17:10:08 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 電子商務時代的來臨,網際網路已成為企業經營者 與消費者進行商業交易的新興管道,業者可以透過網頁 購物機制提供商品與服務內容的介紹,直接與消費者在 網路平台上進行交易;然而,網路交易畢竟與傳統實體 商店陳列商品進行買賣時消費者得以實際檢視商品的情 況不同,一旦網路業者因標價錯誤衍生消費爭議,業者 往往因顧慮大額損失而不願承認契約,消費者雖有其應 享之權益,但若明知標價錯誤而仍訂購,是否值得保護?\r 若干法律爭議涉及網路購物交易網頁之性質究竟是要約 或要約之引誘?其定性是否影響交易契約之成立?業者 在消費者下訂後的自動回覆信函是否為承諾?契約是否 因而成立?業者得否撤銷契約?應否課予網路業者標價 錯誤的過失責任?而消費者因標價錯誤的機會而購買商 品,其信賴利益是否值得法律保護?業者與消費者間之 權益應如何取得衡平? 本文自我國法院已作成之逢陞科技及戴爾電腦案共 七件判決,並參考國外法院之處理方式,就前述之法律 爭議加以整理分析比較,以圖表方式表現,以收一目了 然之效,並發現法院做成結論的三大決定點,企圖以此 提供業者就其購物機制作些許調整,以免除日後發生類 似的消費爭議。
    E-commerce is a mechanism where business and consumers make transactions directly over the Internet. For forming an online contract, business provides detailed product information online, including product photos, specification and even reviews, by creating web pages to attract customers. However, electronic transactions are different from physical store transactions which customers can actively touch and examine products before they decide to place an order. When online price errors occur, most stores choose not to honor price and orders because of tremendous economic loss caused. Nevertheless, the issues of online price errors are complicated; the issues include whether valid contracts between customers and online stores have been formed when a customer places an order online? Is the detailed web page information a contract offer or just an invitation to offer? Do replies by automated system created by online stores constitute contract acceptances? Are online stores eligible to cancel the contract in case of pricing errors? All these issues need delicately considering the interest balance between business loss and consumer protection. This article focuses on solving above issues by analyzing and comparing seven related Taiwanese court decisions, including well-known Dell price error cases, and referring to international judicial opinions. The conclusion of the comments providing comparison chart of court decisions has found three decisive points by which courts accordingly exercise to make decisions. For avoiding future price error controversy, this article suggests that business should slightly adjust the content of replied mail sent by automated system to verify the validity of the contract. This article concludes that since online business is capable of designing an enforceable system to control its own risk, it is not appropriate for business to shift its price error liability to consumers.
    Relation: 政大智慧財產評論, 9(1), 1-42
    NCCU Intellectual Property Review
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[智慧財產評論] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML189View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback