English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 89327/119107 (75%)
Visitors : 23855768      Online Users : 710
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
    政大機構典藏 > 法學院 > 法律學系 > 期刊論文 >  Item 140.119/127661
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/127661

    Title: 由應記載及不得記載事項看消費性定型化契約「內容監督」之發展與實踐──以預售屋買賣定型化契約違約處罰條款為例
    Observing the Development and Implementation of “Content Supervision” on Standardized Consumer Contracts from Mandatory and Prohibitory Provisions -A Case Study of the Penalty Clause Under the Mandatory and Prohibitory Provisions of Pre-Sale House Standard Contracts
    Authors: 吳瑾瑜
    Wu, Jiin-Yu
    Contributors: 法律系
    Keywords: 消費性定型化契約內容監督;預售屋買賣定型化契約應記載及不得記載事項;預售屋聯合稽查;違約處罰條款;違約金酌減
    Supervision on the Content of Standardized Consumer Contracts;Mandatory and Prohibitory Provisions of Pre-sale House Standard Contracts;Joint Inspection on Pre-Sale House;Penalty Clause;Penalty Reduction
    Date: 2019-07
    Issue Date: 2019-12-04 14:44:48 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 有關消費性定型化契約之「內容監督」,消費者保護法採行政監督與司法審查並行之雙軌規制。而以主管機關之公告權與查核權為基礎之行政監督,在效能上遠遠優於法院進行的司法審查,「儼然成為消費性定型化契約「內容規「制」之引擎。目前已公告應記載及不得記載事項的定型化契約類型近90種,其中又以預售屋買賣定型化契約應記載及不得記載事項內容最複雜,修正次數最頻繁,堪稱為中央目的事業主管機關對|定型化契約「內容監督」的代表之作。而預售屋買賣定型化契約中的「違約處罰條款」應記載事項,不僅是地方政府查核與司法審查的重心,也是觀察定型化契約「內容監督」發展與實踐的關鍵指標。
    The Consumer Protection Act adopts a double-track system for “content supervision” regarding the standardized consumer contracts with administrative supervision and judicial review. The effectiveness of administrative supervision based on competent authorities’ rights of announcement and examination is far superior to that of judicial review conducted by the courts, and the former has apparently become the driving force for “content regulation” regarding standardized consumer contracts. Currently, there are almost 90 released Mandatory and Prohibitory Provisions for standardized contracts, and the one for pre-sale houses is the most complicated type with the most frequent modifications, which makes it a symbolic work of central government authority’s “content supervision”. In addition, the “penalty clause” under the said standardized contract for pre-sale houses is not only the focus of local government’s examination and judicial review, but also a key factor in observing the development and implementation of “content supervision” on standardized contracts.
    Relation: 月旦法學雜誌, No.290 期, pp.pp. 21- 41
    Data Type: article
    DOI 連結: https://doi.org/10.3966/102559312019070290002
    DOI: 10.3966/102559312019070290002
    Appears in Collections:[法律學系] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat

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

    社群 sharing

    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback