契約成立與契約拘束力——新交易環境中契約成立制度適用研究

Abstract

本文主要對新交易環境與交易形態中契約成立的傳統法律制度之適用以及方法之轉變進行探討。通過對以下四項問題的討論分析，提出台灣與大陸傳統民法理論中未能解決的實務問題，從比較法分析中找尋目前法律體系下可能的解決辦法，以求使傳統民法理論更貼近實際，並能達到促進有效交易的目的。 一、意向書的效力。此類問題主要在於契約未成立時，交易雙方為傳遞交易資訊，記載交易事項之文書的法律效力問題。觀察實務中出現此類問題甚多，但是對於文書是否有契約拘束力法院見解不一，而該類交易通常重大，牽涉資金數額較多，若出現爭執時法院認定文書之效力與當事人原有意圖相左，則往往會給當事人帶來慘重的損失。依比較法之見解，應不拘泥於文書之名稱，考量文書之用語、條款等綜合觀察文書整體，並且結合當事人交易的性質以及是否履行等情形，判斷當事人是否有受拘束之意思。 二、君子協議。此類問題主要探討當事人排除契約拘束力，而後又產生爭執時，如何判斷協議中契約拘束力之問題。問題的關鍵在於當事人是否有受法律拘束的意思。通常情況下，法院在判斷協議中當事人是否有受拘束的意思是，分不同場景有一定預設：民事以情感信賴為基礎的協議通常會被預設無契約拘束力，而在商事協議中，會被預設有契約拘束力。而推翻此類預設，則需要當事人承擔一定的舉證責任，法院仍應結合除排除拘束力條款之外的其他因素綜合考量。若當事人明確表示排除契約拘束力者，在一些特定行業中，有自己行業內部約定規則與爭端解決機制，應尊重當事人意思。並且此種情況較難出現當事人實際訴至法院的情形。而在其他情況下，當事人若意圖排除契約拘束力者，若訴至法院，通常認為當事人對協議拘束力有爭議。 三、標準訂單表格之爭。此類問題在於雙方商事契約中，定型化契約條款之衝突問題。問題分為兩部分，即定型化條款是否訂入契約以及契約是否成立的問題。而後者又分為契約是否成立與若成立後契約條款應以何者定型化條款為契約內容之問題。通過比較法觀察，各立法例所採取的方法主要有三種：「第一擊理論」、「最後一擊原則」與「相互擊倒原則」。綜合觀察，各種方法均認為在雙方商事契約中，不涉及必要之點的定型化契約條款之衝突並不影響契約成立，而爭點在於契約條款以何者為準。結合台灣及大陸的法律現狀，以「互相擊倒」的「排除原則」為主體較為適宜。 四、網路購物契約成立問題。此類問題探討在網路購物中業者錯標價後之相關契約成立問題。關鍵在於網路購物中業者所傳遞出的各類資訊，如發佈之頁面、拘束力保留之服務條款、自動發出之郵件確認信等是否有受拘束之意思。以上問題皆須依照個案考察業者資訊傳遞是否為要約，而之後業者是否可以因錯誤撤銷其意思表示，而消費者若已付款，是否影響契約成立。但無論個案如何，皆建議業者應當在交易中，用清晰、明確、易懂的用語將網路傳達之資訊的法律效力以及消費者所處之階段向消費者表明，以保護消費者之利益，並有利於交易順利進行。

The thesis is on the application of traditional rules and the development of approaches of contract formation in new transaction contexts. Through analyzing the following four issues, the difficulties are pointed out when searching for the solutions of the issues from the modern practice under Taiwan and Mainland China civil code theory. Aiming at getting closer to the reality and improving the efficient transactions, the thesis uses the approach of comparative law for better solutions for those four issues in new transaction contexts. First, the letters of intent. In many cases, the parties make written statement of provisional agreement during the months of years of negotiations. Such cases consider the legal effect of such statement. The problem appears to occur across all legal systems but the results are not necessarily exactly the same. However, such transactions usually involve a great amount of money. If the distinction in attitude to legal effect of the statement between the judge and the parties, the parties would suffer a great financial loss. According to analyzing the comparative law, the legal effect of the letters of intent should not depend on the names of them, but many other aspects like wording, open provisions, etc. All the circumstances in the contents and contexts of the statement should be taken into consideration to determine whether there was an intention to be bound by the parties. Second, the gentlemen’s agreement. Such cases consider the denial of legally binding effect，and the key point is whether the parties have an intention to contract. The courts have made use of presumptions in this area. Generally, in a family or social setting there is a presumption that the parties do not intend to contract. In a commercial setting there is a strong presumption that the parties intend to contract. When the presumptions apply, the onus of proof shifts and the party who wishes to challenge the legal efficacy of the agreement must bring into evidence facets that rebut the presumption. One technique used to rebut the presumption in the commercial setting is the honor clause. In some developed industry, businesses have their own rules and disputes resolution with honor bound. In that case, the court should respect the parties. Besides, the courts should take all possible factors into consideration to determine the parties’ intention. Third, the battle of forms. The cases are about the conflicts between standard form contracts used by two commercial entities. The problem should be divided into two parts: whether the standard terms are incorporated into the contract and whether there is a contract. The latter issue also involves which standard terms should be the content of the contract when there is such conflict. Referring to the comparative law, there are three approaches: “the First Shot Theory ”, “the Last Shot Doctrine” and “the knock-out rule ”. Actually, no matter in which approach, the conflicts between standard terms from two commercial entities do not affect the existence of the contract. Considering which terms should be the content of contract, “the knock-out rule” is a better solution. At last, the contract formation online. Everything is the question of intention, both online and in the real world. The issue is to determine whether the seller online manifested their intention through the websites, the automatically-sent email, and the service clause. Besides, whether the seller could withdraw his intention when he set the wrong price on the website, and whether the payment by consumers would make the contract exist are two other issue in the discussion. The answer of those questions should be found case by case. However, the law should encourage the sellers online to manifest their intention clearly and without ambiguous, for protecting the rights of the consumers and improving the efficient transactions.