論預售屋契約之締結及其民事義務與責任： 以預售屋廣告為中心

Abstract

廣告，對於生活在現代社會之人，是乘載交易資訊的重要媒介，除了教育之功能，更重要的是，能夠促進潛在消費群眾形成消費動機，進而付費購買特定產品或服務。而因應我國地狹人稠之特性，預售屋交易蓬勃發展，因此「預售屋廣告」的型態日趨多元，建商無不期待能透過更豐富的廣告行銷手法，吸引具有「成家夢」的消費者預定建案。然而，當預售屋廣告內容非交易上可容許之誇大、吹噓時，為保護購屋者對廣告之正當信賴，應認特定之廣告內容得「法定地」訂入成為預售屋契約內容之一部。 植基於預售屋「先售後建」之特性，消費者難以即時比對廣告資訊與實體產品；再加上購屋者通常較建商缺乏房屋建造、裝潢等相關知識經驗，通常處於資訊劣勢之地位。為平衡建商與購屋者間的資訊地位，應於個案中課與建商告知說明義務，要求其適時揭露預售屋交易之資訊予購屋者，俾落實信賴保護、誠實信用原則。 若購屋者發現預售屋廣告所呈現者，與嗣後落成之房屋有所出入——亦即購屋者所信賴之資訊來源竟係「不實預售屋廣告」時，其所能主張之民事權利將因訴求不同而異，我國實務判決中，尤以「請求給付契約內容之標的」、「請求返還差價」、「請求返還契約價金」三者最為常見。 其中，就「返還差價」之請求，宜注意行使民法第359條減價權，其計算求得之「差價」，將與債務不履行損害賠償之數額不同；而就「返還契約價金」之請求，如係行使解除契約權，無論是買賣物之瑕疵擔保責任，亦或是債務不履行責任，均應以「契約目的不達」，作為解除契約之共通、核心之要件。

Nowadays, advertising is an important medium to carry transaction information. In addition to its educational function, it is also important to encourage potential consumers to form motives and pay for specific products or services. Hence, presale house advertisings are becoming more and more diversified, and builders are looking forward to using a variety of advertising to attract consumers who are eager to own their own house. However, when the contents of presale house advertising are not transactive permissible exaggerations or boast, in order to protect the justified reliance of the buyers, specific contents of the advertisements should be “legally” included as part of the presale house contract. Due to the nature of presale housing, it is difficult for buyers to compare the information in advertisements with the actual product. To strike a balance of the information position between the builder and the buyer, the builders are obliged to disclose the information regarding presale house to the buyers promptly in accordance with the means of good faith. If a buyer discovers that there is a discrepancy between what is presented in the presale house advertising and the subsequently completed home —— that is, if the source of information is based on a “false presale house advertising” —— the civil rights that the buyer could claim will vary depending on the claims. In our practice, the three most common claims are “request for fulfilling the contract,” “request for a refund,” and “request for returning the payment of price.” Cases regarding “request for a refund” should be noted that the “price difference” calculated according to Article 359 of the Civil Code will be different from the number of damages for non-performance; and in the case of a claim for “returning the payment of price”, if the right to terminate the contract is exercised, the core element for such termination should be “fundamental breach”.