English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 93861/124308 (76%)
Visitors : 28944277      Online Users : 456
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 140.119/68600
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/68600

    Title: 定型化契約條款內容控制的問題導向論證
    Other Titles: The Problem-Oriented Argument in Judicial Review of the Provisions in the Pre-Formulated Standard Contracts
    Authors: 許政賢
    Hsu, Cheng-Hsien
    Contributors: 法律系
    Keywords: 定型化契約;內容控制;問題導向;類觀點學;概括條款;誠信原則;信用卡條款;循環利息
    pre-formulated standard contracts;judicial review;problem-oriented argument;topic argument;general clause;principle of good faith;credit card terms;revolving interests
    Date: 2013-10
    Issue Date: 2014-08-12 14:50:07 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 在20世紀中葉以後,法學界針對傳統方法論的不足,陸續嘗試突破傳統架構的侷限。由Viehweg引發高度重視的類觀點學,到Alexy具有重要影響的論證理論,逐步建構多元的方法系譜。尤其就概括條款的具體化過程,連傳統方法論名家仍須承認,此時法官必須進行評價以補充框架內涵,如單純以法律或立法者的價值決定,並無法作成裁判。我國消保法第12條有關消費性定型化契約條款的內容控制,由於涉及概括條款的具體化問題,學理上認為係立法者授權法官填補空白,多承認其準立法性質,而須考量法政策層面問題。換言之,消保法第12條係立法者授權法官,於個案中發展具體規範的典型概括條款,但由於依該條所為內容控制無法以傳統涵攝模式進行,而應依具體事實、條件、社會情境進行價值選擇,就此而言,不得不承認法官仍具有一定的裁量空間。而在上述法律適用過程中,既無法以演繹方式推導出結論,此時替代方法-例如:問題導向思考-往往就有填補傳統方法不足的空間。實務上曾有引發輿論重視的案例,其中所涉不同審級法院的判決,在風格、結論上均形成強烈對比,依本文分析,其中涉及新論證方法與傳統解釋方法的對立,或涉及在運用體系架構論述的實務判決中,如何融入問題導向的思維方式。由本文所討論的案例顯示,在歐陸法系重視體系架構及理論的國家,至少就概括條款的具體化方面,在方法上應持開放立場,承認並融入類觀點學以個案問題為討論中心的靈活方法,較能兼顧法律規範的合法性及個案正義的正當性。
    The problems and limitations of legal methodology have provoked enthusiastic discussions since the second half of the last century. These discussions are based on the assumption that the so-called traditional methods of legal interpretation can not provide enough pragmatic and reliable tools in dealing with certain intractable problems, such as judicial review of the provisions in the pre-formulated standard contracts. In these cases regarding the application of general clauses, it is well recognized that the judge was authorized to supplement specific contents of legal texts. In fact, some abstract legal concepts, such as the principle of good faith or unfair, can not be determined by means of the subsumption. It is no wonder such discussions have not yet come to the end. However, it is also evident that there is no definite alternative model or solution for this problem that are widely accepted so far. Under such circumstances, some argued that the problem-oriented argument should at least be one of the alternative or complementary models for the system-based argument which the majority of court decisions are accustomed to apply. In this article, the background of some controversial topics in legal methodology has been introduced briefly and a problem-oriented argument is also recommended in order to promote the connection between the legal conceptions and social facts. It is also argued that the main duty of a lawyer is not searching for a simple and pure theory, but fulfilling social responsibility. If we take this advice under serious consideration, it is clear that there can be no achievement without sacrifice. Besides, it is always the facts that we have to face in the eternal pursuit of the balance between rules and justice in any legal case.
    Relation: 東吳法律學報, 25(2), 51-86
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[法律學系] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    5186.pdf1544KbAdobe PDF460View/Open

    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