契約解釋方法論之反省與重構——以娛樂產業契約關係為例

Abstract

娛樂契約之範疇極其廣袤，舉凡業界常見之錄音契約、出版契約，及與幕後團隊—經紀人、法律顧問、代理人—間之服務契約，又如現場演出活動與策展單位間契約、製作周邊商品之契約，再如影視製作之募資、素材授權、導演/製作人/演員服務契約，甚或包裹性地納入多種服務領域之360契約/全約，均有探討空間。各類契約廣義上不乏可觀察之類似結構，舉凡主體、客體、對價、期間，隨時現蹤。彼等契約組成之娛樂產業，至少具備仰賴新創內容、高風險高報酬、資本集中、與傳播科技同步發展、倚重產業習慣、臨場變動性六大特徵，而在娛樂公司與藝人合作過程磋商能力之折衝間，尚可能衍生談判、控制、壓迫等問題，始終隨契約關係之演進而流變。 惟此高度精緻之契約關係安排，卻因我國司法實務之錯誤解釋取徑而嚴重變調。最高法院向來以契約定性為法院職權、力主民法委任章節之任意終止權不得為特約所排除。各級法院揣摩上意，非惟將娛樂契約定性為委任或混合勞務契約並適用委任規定，更寬泛允許當事人在已有期間、違約效果等明確約款之前提下任意終止契約，恍若視契約約定為無物，更對產業上理據充耳不聞。考其緣由，概係受我國傳統見解中定性優先論之荼毒。該說以定性為契約解釋優先要務，惟實則契約尚應參酌約定本身及眾多法律外規範層次，若任意規定無涉個案漏洞填補機能，未必萬事而求之。 然前揭定性非必要論仍嫌單薄，蓋我國契約解釋之盲點已非枝微末節，而係總體性忽略契約社會意義而搖搖欲墜。為補其憾，本文自社會觀點討論人類基於維繫社會生活而從事交換、與交換對象互蒙其利，並促進勞動分工與社會連帶之漸變過程，以溯源契約本質。接續深入探討基本契約理論、契約光譜論、關係分析法之內涵，釐清契約之特質與解釋論應有之取徑。表彰契約意義之交換過程可抽譯出十種共通之中介規範，構成基本契約理論之框架。觀契約各層次規範組合而生之整體價值取向，則可資區分個別/交織型契約，而為契約光譜論之核心。進而，關係方法論主張契約分析應先探求不可分割之背景脈絡，以此劃定個別分析之極限，末始執行所需之個別分析，以免分析者陷入有限智識下之武斷決擇。 我國契約理論鍾情源於個人主義之私法自治，惟實不僅在客觀解釋之介入下自毀，更因著力點囿於約款與法律，而對解釋參考因素施以不正確之歧視或排除。本文據而主張應循關係分析法精神建構契約解釋方法—首應從事契約整體價值取向之判斷，次依循雙端預設規則定其解釋取徑。雙端預設規則主張之個別端點應高度尊重契約規劃之拘束力；交織端宜開放地參酌交易過程引發之信賴與默契、事實上交易習慣、誠信原則等因素，並依彼等與契約本身之牽連強弱定其優先列後。本文接續以雙端預設規則開展對傳統商事契約諸理論之修正，兼及程序法上包括訴訟、ADR在內之實踐，以為理論實用性之試金石。 本於前述基礎，文末以娛樂契約產業面向四大觀察重點—參與者之性質與互動、契約客體與對價之現時化概念意義、專屬性與期間之權力配置—為首，表彰特定交易社會環境優先探究之急迫性。其次，具體指出司法實務在期間與交付標準、專屬條款、定型化契約顯失公平三大議題之解釋偏差所在，進而指出五大罪狀—基礎理論不穩、錯誤個別分析取徑、分析權重恣意、避重就輕、口徑不一—並藉此等困境提出契約撰擬面向力求自保之手段。

Entertainment contracts encompass a wide range of legal instruments, from recording and publishing agreements to management, legal counsel, and agency arrangements, as well as contracts concerning live events, merchandising, audiovisual production, and integrated “360 deals.” Despite their structural diversity, these agreements generally share common elements such as parties, objects, consideration, and duration. Embedded within a high-risk, high-reward industry that thrives on novel content, capital concentration, and shifting technological mediums, entertainment contracts are deeply shaped by industry custom, negotiation dynamics, and the volatility of live and mediated performance. However, this complex contractual ecosystem has been severely distorted by the prevailing approach of Taiwanese courts. Adhering rigidly to the classification-centric methodology, courts routinely characterize entertainment agreements as mandate or mixed-service contracts, thereby extending mandatory termination rights and disregarding clearly stipulated terms. This doctrinal commitment to contract typology over functional interpretation reflects a deeper jurisprudential malaise: a failure to account for the social significance and relational nature of modern contractual practice. To address this deficiency, this Article proposes a reinterpretation of contract theory grounded in sociological and relational jurisprudence. Drawing from the essential contract theory, the spectrum theory of discrete and intertwined contracts, and the relational approach, the Article elucidates a normative framework in which the process of exchange gives rise to ten intermediate common norms. These norms constitute the foundation of a layered interpretive model that distinguishes between discrete and relational contracts. Within this framework, the interpretive methodology must begin with an assessment of the contract’s holistic value orientation and proceed via a “double-end default rule” approach: while respecting autonomy and planning at the discrete end, courts should at the relational end be receptive to contextual factors such as reliance, course of dealing, trade usage, and good faith. Applying this relational interpretive model, the Article critiques prevailing judicial misinterpretations of three key doctrines in entertainment law: contract duration and performance standards, exclusivity clauses, and the unconscionability of adhesion contracts. It identifies five recurrent pathologies—unstable theoretical foundations, misguided analytical routes, arbitrary weighting of factors, avoidance of core issues, and doctrinal inconsistency—while offering practical drafting strategies to mitigate these risks. The Article concludes by emphasizing the urgency of contextualized legal analysis in entertainment contracting, particularly in light of the evolving nature of contractual subjects, values, and power relations in the presentational economy of the creative industries.