定型化契約法之發展，與最高法院之裁判，息息相關。民法尚無定型化契約之一般明文規定前，最高法院相關裁判，已經扮演指導功能，該院七十三年第十次及第十一次民事庭會議關於甲種活期存款及乙種活期存款契約之定型化印章辨識條款效力之決議，堪為典型。一九九四年一月十一日公布施行之消保法及二０００年五月五日施行之民法債編修正條文，特設定型化契約規定，但因訴諸「顯失公平」、「誠信原則」、「平等互惠」等不確定法律概念，故仍仰賴最高法院在具體案例中，藉由裁判而闡釋條文疑義、平衡雙方利益、防止濫用契約自由、確保實現契約正義。本文以最高法院關於民法第二四七條之一之裁判為主題，闡述定型化契約法之實務發展，並特別分析檢討最高法院關於「自我免責條款」、「加重他方責任條款」、「他方棄權條款」之裁判，以供學術與實務參考。 In Taiwan, the development of the law of standard contract terms is very closely related to the decisions of the Supreme Court. Before the provisions of the standard contract terms came into effect, the decisions of the Supreme Court had already played a directive role, the 10th and the 11th Resolutions of the Supreme Court made in 1984 serving as an example. The 1994 Consumer Protection Act and the 2000 revised provisions of the Law of Obligations both provide regulations of the law of standard contract terms. However, these regulations contain ambiguous and uncertain terms and conceptions such as obvious unfairness, the principle of good faith and the principle of equality and reciprocity. As a result, the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in specific cases are indispensable to clarifying the ambiguity of the provisions, balancing the mutual benefits of the parties, preventing abuse of the freedom of contract and ensuring the justice of contract. Based on the decisions of the Supreme Court, this article researches in depth the development of the law of standard contract terms. By virtue of analyzing and criticizing in particular the Supreme Court’s decisions in connection with exemption clauses, aggravating liability clauses and waiver clauses, this article wishes to provide both academics and the practice with constructive references.