論網路商品服務提供平臺對消費者之契約責任

Abstract

本文圍繞現代社會中網路商品服務提供平臺上交易中，消費者之救濟方式展開，聚焦於網路商品服務提供平臺對於消費者負擔之契約責任。本文以「交易作為主要功能，並且可依平臺本身之手續完成契約意思表示之傳達及締約」之網路商品服務提供平臺為研究對象（以下稱網路平臺），分析網路平臺與消費者之間成立何種契約關係，以及其對於消費者在契約上負擔之具體義務內容。 在網路平臺上交易之法律關係中主要存在消費者、網路商品服務提供平臺，以及提供商品或服務與消費者或網路商品服務提供平臺之提供者三方當事人。其間法律關係包括網路平臺分別與消費者及提供者成立之利用契約，以及消費者與提供者或網路平臺成立之交易契約。 本文首先從交易契約當事人之認定出發，跳脫比較法上以指揮監督程度針對提供服務之網路平臺為特別討論的觀點；說明無論網路平臺係提供商品或服務，皆應以可決定是否為交易契約上意思表示之「實質意思表示人」判準進行交易契約當事人之判斷。再就提供服務之網路平臺上，提供者直接與消費者接觸而「浮現」於交易契約中，因而受網路平臺指揮監督之特性；說明網路服務提供平臺在與提供者之間具有「經濟上從屬性關係」，並且其指揮監督影響提供者交易契約上意思表示與否之決定時，提供者之決定將被架空，而使交易契約上實質意思表示人被認定為網路服務提供平臺。 在釐清交易契約當事人後，直接型與媒介型網路平臺亦可被區分。本文接著聚焦於非屬於交易契約當事人之媒介型網路平臺，討論在消費者與網路平臺之間成立之利用契約上，網路平臺之契約義務內容。本文觀察實際利用契約得出之「媒介服務提供」共通條款，並分析其具體義務內涵。在比較法上共識之「健全系統構築義務」上位概念下，提出以「締結有效交易契約」之契約主要目的為判準，輔以比較法上「網路平臺義務履行可能性及成本」、「消費者資訊權」，以及「提供者資訊保障」三方價值的衡量標準，作成消費者與網路平臺之間利用契約義務內容之判斷。 最後，為充實消費者在網路平臺交易中的權利主張，本文再就媒介型網路平臺是否應在非屬於交易契約當事人之交易契約上負擔一定契約責任為討論。分析比較法上之行政規則及提案，以消費者無法在其與網路平臺之間利用契約上為責任主張，建構向媒介型網路平臺為交易契約上主張的必要性。援用比較法上「網絡契約論」的概念，輔以「權責相符」之原則，完整建構媒介型網路商品服務提供平臺突破契約相對性，而在交易契約上負擔契約責任之正當性。說明僅有在媒介型網路平臺對於提供者有「支配性影響」，而高度介入交易契約之履行時，消費者方可向媒介型平臺主張交易契約上包括履行請求、契約解除，以及損害賠償之債務不履行契約責任法律效果。

This thesis centers on consumer remedies within transactions on online marketplaces in modern society, focusing specifically on the contractual liability of online marketplaces toward consumers. The research subject is confined to online marketplaces, whose "principal service is transaction facilitation, enabling the transmission of contractual intent and conclusion of contracts through their own built-in systems." The study analyzes the contractual relationships established between online marketplaces and consumers, as well as the obligations of the contracts. The legal relationships within online marketplace transactions primarily involve three parties: consumers, online marketplaces, and providers who supply products and services to consumers or online marketplaces (hereinafter referred to as “providers”). These legal relationships encompass the "user agreements" concluded by the online marketplace with consumers and providers respectively, and the "transaction contracts" established between consumers and providers, or between consumers and online marketplaces. Starting with the determination of the contractual parties of the transaction contract, this thesis moves beyond the comparative law perspective that focuses exclusively on online marketplaces providing services, with the criteria of control and supervision levels. It demonstrates that regardless of whether an online marketplace provides products or services, the determination of the parties to a transaction contract should invariably be guided by the criterion of the "de facto declarant of intent"—namely, whoever makes the substantive decision on whether or not to declare intent for the transaction contract. Furthermore, regarding online marketplaces providing services, where providers interact directly with consumers and thus "emerge" in the transaction contract, thereby subject to the platform's control and supervision, this thesis explains that when an "economic dependency relationship" exists between the online marketplace and the provider, and the control of the online marketplace substantively dictates the provider's decision to declare intent, the provider’s autonomy is effectively nullified. Consequently, the online marketplace must be recognized as the de facto declarant of intent for the transaction contract, and is therefore recognized as a party to the transaction contract. After clarifying the parties to the transaction contract, a clear distinction can be drawn between "direct-type" and "intermediary-type" online marketplaces. This thesis thus focuses on intermediary-type online marketplaces that are not parties to the transaction contract, discussing the content of the online marketplace's contractual obligations under the user agreement established between the consumer and the online marketplace. By observing actual user agreements, the common clause of "transaction facilitation service provision" has been derived. This study thus analyzes the concrete substance of the obligations under the clause. Under the overarching consensus concept of the "obligation to construct a sound system" found in comparative law, this thesis proposes the primary contract purpose of "concluding an effective transaction contract" as the core criterion for determining the content of obligations under the user agreement. Supplemented by a tripartite balancing standard derived from comparative law—evaluating the "feasibility and cost of the online marketplace's performance," the "consumer's right to information," and the "protection of the provider's information"—this thesis formulates a comprehensive determination of the content of the obligations under the user agreement between consumers and online marketplaces. Finally, to enrich the rights asserted by consumers in online marketplace transactions, this thesis discusses whether intermediary-type online marketplaces should bear certain contractual liabilities under a transaction contract to which they are not a party. Analyzing administrative rules and proposals in comparative law, the study establishes the necessity of permitting claims based on the transaction contract against intermediary platforms precisely when consumers cannot assert liability under their user agreements with the platform. Grounded in the comparative law concept of the "doctrine of contractual networks" and supplemented by the principle of "commensurability of authority and responsibility," this thesis constructs a solid justification for allowing intermediary online marketplaces to break through the privity of contract and assume contractual liability under transaction contracts. The conclusion demonstrates that only when an intermediary online marketplace exercises a "predominant influence" over the provider and highly intervenes in the performance of the transaction contract should consumers be permitted to break through contract privity and assert the legal effects of breach of the transaction contract against the intermediary platform, encompassing claims for specific performance, contract rescission, and expectation damages.