締約上過失制度之重構-以不實陳述為中心 - 政大學術集成

全文

(1)國立政治大學法律學系碩士班碩士論文. 締約上過失制度之重構-以不實陳述為中心. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學 y. sit. io. n. al. er. Nat. 指導教授：許政賢博士. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. 研究生：陳冠睿撰. 中華民國一○七年七月. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.012.2018.F10.

(2) 中文摘要隨著社會經濟高度分工化的發展而導致交易內容複雜化，交易階段顯現化的保護需求亦或單純從締約磋商階段信賴層升的保護必要性來看，締約上過失制度有其規範的必要性。因此，當事人於契約磋商階段，因一方可歸責的行為而導致受有損害時，法律上究竟何時應介入與介入後應採取何種效果為一重大的議題。我國民法承繼德國法而來，在侵權行為法保障客體過於狹隘且非締約後的契約責任可救濟的情形下，增訂了民法第 245 條之 1，然而因立法者限於嗣後契約未成立的立法預設以及各款要件均過於嚴格的情形下，該條規定適用. 政治大. 機會大幅限縮而喪失增訂的實益，長久以來受學界所批評。. 立. ‧ 國. 學. 交易的本質在於期望值，然而期望值判斷的前提在於透過足夠的資訊去評估，因此在資訊錯誤而締結不利契約時，須討論當事人間風險應該如何分配。. ‧. 相關議題涉及廣泛，諸如物之瑕疵擔保、不完全給付，都和其相關。而締約上. sit. y. Nat. 過失制度如欲訂立一般性規定，其和上開制度間又該如何妥適解釋接軌，為本. io. n. al. er. 文嘗試想解決的議題。. i n U. v. 本文在論述上，先將我國關於締約上過失目前實務和學說的見解整理爬梳，. Ch. engchi. 進而就嗣後契約未成立的立法預設以及最常見的告知義務違反的態樣該如何重構進行討論。在比較法的援用上，以英國不實陳述法的概念為介紹主軸，並輔以日本法、聯合國國際商事契約通則、歐洲契約法原則以及共同參考架構草案，而在分析方法上並輔以經濟分析，試圖整理外國立法潮流及有無我國法可借鑑之處。最後，本文會提出關於締約上過失一般性規定的立法建議，並就我國前述重要相關制度的檢討和適用提出看法，希望能對我國法制提供可能的參考方向。. 關鍵字：締約上過失一般性規定、不實陳述、告知義務、資訊有價、錯誤風險來源的區分。 I. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.012.2018.F10.

(3) 目. 錄. 第一章緒論··················································································································1 第一節研究動機··································································································1 第二節研究目的··································································································2 第三節研究範圍與方法······················································································6 第一項研究範圍························································································6 第二項研究方法························································································7 第一款經濟分析及比較法分析··························································7 第二款案例研究··················································································8 第二章我國締約上過失責任之制度爭議··································································9 第一節締約上過失制度的必要性及法理基礎··················································9 第一項締約上過失制度的必要性······························································9 第二項締約上過失制度的法理基礎························································11 第二節締約上過失制度的定位········································································12. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. 第一項學說見解························································································12 第二項實務見解························································································13 第三項本文見解························································································14 第三節民法第 245 條之 1 的成立要件與法律效果········································15 第一項契約未成立時該如何解釋····························································15 第一款學說見解················································································15 第二款實務見解················································································17. sit. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. 第三款本文見解················································································20 第二項非因過失信契約能成立致受損害················································20 第一款學說見解················································································21 第二款實務見解················································································21 第三款本文見解················································································23 第三項 245 條之 1 各款要件分析·····························································23 第一款說明義務的違反····································································23 第二款保密義務的違反····································································26 第三款其他附隨義務之違反····························································26 第四項小結································································································28. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. 第四節締約上過失的類型················································································30 第一項違反保護及維護義務····································································32 第二項違反說明及告知義務····································································33 第一款說明義務之範圍射程····························································34 第二款特別法下的說明義務····························································35 第一目消費者保護法································································35 II. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.012.2018.F10.

(4) 第二目金融消費者保護法························································40 第三項中斷締約························································································42 第一款與契約自由的界限································································42 第二款預約相關議題的探討····························································44 第四項契約不成立或無效─以代理為例················································51 第一款相對人主觀要件僅為善意是否足夠····································51 第二款無權代理人為無過失責任會否過苛····································53 第三款法律效果················································································54 第四款代理制度比較法整理····························································55 第五款本文見解················································································58 第五項第三人之締約上過失責任····························································60 附論契約未成立的反思····················································································64 第三章承載能量不足的要件規範-以「不實陳述」為中心··································70 第一節英國法-不實陳述條例(Misrepresentation Act)的淺介················71 第一項不實陳述的意義············································································73. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. 第二項不實陳述內容的類型····································································75 第三項不實陳述的主觀類型····································································78 第四項誘使他人締約················································································79 第五項不實陳述的法律救濟····································································82 第一款解除契約及請求補償····························································82 第二款損害賠償代替解除契約························································84 第三款損害賠償················································································84. sit. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. 第六項責任豁免條款及不平等契約條款················································87 第七項小結································································································88 第二節國際統一法律文件契約法錯誤之相關規定········································89 第一項聯合國國際商事契約通則(PICC)··············································90 第二項歐洲契約法原則(PECL)······························································94 第三項共同參考架構草案(DCFR)··························································96 第四項小結······························································································97 第三節日本法的遞嬗························································································97 第一項日本學界的爭執············································································98 第二項日本法試案的變遷········································································99. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. 第四節資訊風險的經濟分析··········································································103 第一項法律經濟分析的歷史和方法····················································104 第二項資訊風險的分配··········································································113 第一款資訊義務的難題··································································113 第二款資訊風險分配的變數決定··················································115 第五節締約上過失制度的重構與修法建議··················································120 III. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.012.2018.F10.

(5) 第四章與我國相關制度的比較與檢討··································································125 第一節錯誤體系······························································································127 第一項我國法的錯誤體系······································································127 第二項錯誤體系的重構··········································································128 第一款表意人在類型 B 撤銷意思表示時是否衡量他方的情事··130 第一目表意人所須負的注意程度為何··································130 第二目表意人得否撤銷是否衡量他方的情事······················131 第二款表意人在類型 B 的損害賠償責任是否為無過失責任······135 第二節物之瑕疵擔保······················································································142 第一項「價格」在物之瑕疵擔保與締約上過失的意義······················142 第二項物之瑕疵擔保和締約上過失的競合··········································143 第一款物之瑕疵與不完全給付······················································144 第一目學說見解······································································144 第二目實務見解······································································146 第二款物之瑕疵擔保與締約上過失··············································149. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. 第三款本文見解··············································································150 第五章結論··············································································································154 參考文獻····················································································································161. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. IV. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.012.2018.F10.

(6) 圖表目錄圖一【預約爭議的相關圖示】··················································································44 圖二【無權代理主觀歸責性圖示】··········································································59 圖三【英國不實陳述條例相關法律效果圖示】······················································87 圖四【錯物體系重構圖示】····················································································129 圖五【物之瑕疵擔保重構圖示】············································································144 表一【資訊揭露義務關係】····················································································119 表二【締約上過失制度重構】················································································120. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. V. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.012.2018.F10.

(7) 第一章緒論第一節研究動機一、資訊義務的難題人類社會因供需而形成的價格，包含了許多意義，如物品本身的品質、對未來的期待等，而其中最重要的因素即在於資訊的取得與了解。於締約進展之過程中，當事人透過資訊的取得與解讀而對尚未形成的交易有一初步的期望值，而再進一步形塑締約與否的決定，易言之，交易的本質就是期望值。可以很容易建構. 政治大. 的連結是，理性的參與者藉由透明充分的資訊(例如銀行利率的高低，市場氛圍. 立. 的冷熱，政府政策的方向)進而決定其欲以承擔多少的風險來換取其主觀上的利. ‧ 國. 學. 益，因此，資訊的本身當然具有經濟價值，誰可以在最短的時間內獲取更多更全面的資訊，便佔據更優勢的地位。然而由於資訊不平等為常態，尤其在今日產品. ‧. 服務專業複雜化，高度分工化的現代生活中，資訊落差導致的保障需求也受到重. Nat. 1. sit. y. 視，舉例而言，2008 年雷曼連動債的爆發，2010 年高盛詐欺案和 2016 年的人民. n. al. er. io. 幣風暴都再次暴露了購買衍生性金融商品2或服務之金融消費者與金融業者間資. i n U. v. 訊不對等之情形。因此須進一步需討論的是，何人在何時情況下具有揭露資訊或. Ch. engchi. 主動彌平資訊不對等的義務，不惟僅是法律面，從哲學面和經濟學面亦多有討論。美國經濟學家 George A. Akerlof 曾提出一篇論文3，其認為由於交易雙方的資訊不對稱性，若不課予賣方提供資訊的義務，則賣方可藉由販賣瑕疵品來獲取較高利潤，而買方則缺乏資訊比較下僅能以價格做為衡量的標準，惡性循環之下將. 1. 例如消費者保護法第 22 條不實廣告在如何一定情形下成為契約內容之一部；金融消費者保護法第 9 條適合性原則和第 10 條說明義務即為適例。 2 衍生性金融商品係指其價值由利率、匯率、股價、指數、商品或其他利益及其組合等所衍生之交易契約。一般可分為直接衍生型與商品組合型，而常見基本型的衍生性金融商品有遠期契約（Forwards）、期貨契約（Futures）、交換契約（Swap）及選擇權契約（Options）。 3 檸檬市場─品質不確定性和市場機能(The Market for Lemons： Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism)。 1. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.012.2018.F10.

(8) 使瑕疵品充斥市場。反之若從買方是否亦可能負有資訊義務的角度而言，美國法 4. 院有一判決可供參考，該案例事實發生在 19 世紀初英國和美國第二次獨立戰爭時期，因為英國對美國實施封鎖，使美國菸草價格大幅滑落，Organ 趁英國和美國簽訂和平條約的消息未公開前，向 Laidlaw & Co 購買 111,000 磅菸草，於交易完成前，Laidlaw 曾向 Organ 詢問他是否知悉相關會影響交易價格的訊息，Organ 沉默以對。其後菸價大幅攀升，Laidlaw 以受詐欺為由撤銷意思表示。法院認為若該資訊對於雙方均可平等接近的情形下，不負有資訊揭露義務，因此判決原告敗訴。由此可知，究竟利己和契約正義拉扯的界線在哪，此一資訊義務的分野為自古以來的難題。. 二、動機錯誤的困境. 立. 政治大. ‧ 國. 學. 在我國意思表示瑕疵的體系中，意思形成階段的動機錯誤，乃是對於意思表. ‧. 示的前提事實發生錯誤，此錯誤在我國法上原則不受斟酌因此不得撤銷，最高法. sit. y. Nat. 院 51 年台上字第 3311 號判例：「民法第八十八條之規定，係指意思表示之內容. io. er. 或表示行為有錯誤者而言，與為意思表示之動機有錯誤之情形有別。」故，除非. al. 其符合民法第 88 條第 2 項：「當事人之資格或物之性質，若交易上認為重要者，. n. v i n Ch 其錯誤，視為意思表示內容之錯誤。」方得撤銷。然而，形成動機錯誤的緣由甚 engchi U 多，因此有無放寬救濟之途值得思考。. 第二節研究目的一、問題意識的提出契約自由為個人自主發展與實現自我之重要機制，並為私法自治之基礎，除依契約之具體內容受憲法各相關基本權利規定保障外，亦屬憲法第二十二條所保. 4. Laidlaw v.Organ,15 U.S.(2 Wheat.) 178 (1817 ). 2. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.012.2018.F10.

(9) 5. 障其他自由權利之一種。而積極表意之自由或消極的表意自由亦為憲法第十一條所保障6。是以當立法者訂立出一套規範，無論是強制性規定或補充性規定，每個構成要件的設計或解讀，其實都涉及當事人之間的利害衡量和風險分配，不惟是立法者，司法者亦同樣在履行這件國家任務7。因此，當一套規範制度產生時，我們可以去探討立法者對於其所欲解決問題的想像是否正確，又其是否填補原本其他制度所無法解決的問題，抑或只是疊床架屋而無真正適用的實益。締約上過失在民事紛爭中屢見不鮮，例如中斷締約、無權代理、錯誤、凶宅買賣、金融商品糾紛等。凡是發生在締約前階段的義務違反情形，理論上均為締. 政治大. 約上過失所含括的態樣。締約上過失規定在我國民法第 245 條之 1 條，其規定過. 立. 於嚴格且考量的因素類型過於狹隘，因此引發許多學理及實務適用上的疑問，諸. ‧ 國. 學. 如締約上過失制度的定位為何？縱然解為法定之債是否也可賦予類似契約效力的保護；請求權人須無過失，而他方的歸責要件卻是惡意、故意或重大過失，如. ‧. 此是否會有輕重失衡？第 1 項所稱「契約未成立時」究何所指，是否包括無效或. Nat. sit. y. 嗣後被撤銷的情形？第 1 項第 1 款說明義務限於被動，則在未經主動詢問的情形. n. al. er. io. 是否為第 3 款的概括情事，若是，則第一款規定的實益何在？各款要件均如此嚴. i n U. v. 苛下，是否依侵權行為即得解決而使民法第 245 條之 1 幾無適用餘地？在要件規. Ch. engchi. 範過於狹隘的情形下，法律解釋及保障的可能範圍自然受到極大的限制。. 二、風險分配的重構. 5. 大法官釋字第 576 號參照。大法官釋字第 577 號參照。 7 舉例來說，民法第 72 條概括條款的解讀，民法第 184 條侵權行為過失的認定，民法第 18 條人格權受侵害時不法的衡量。 3 6. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.012.2018.F10.

(10) 政治大數學函數式 y=f(x)中，x 為自變數，y 則因 x 值而改變，故 y 為因變數。而每立. ‧ 國. 學. 個自變數應被賦予不同的權重(weight)以去適當評價風險分配。以法律的角度而言，便是要去盡可能的設想8然後決定法律是否及應該如何介入9。但風險應如何. ‧. 分配，和當地社會制度及交易通念息息相關，同樣的情事在我國和英國可能會有. 11. sit. y. Nat. 截然不同的結論。以兇宅為例10，英國法院認為基於買者自負(caveat emptor) 的理. io. er. 由，認為屋子裡曾經發生兇殺並非必須要透露的資訊。然而在我國法中，就內政部相關函釋12及相關學說均有認為應負有告知義務13；又以另一案例為例，甲(退. al. n. v i n Ch 休物理學教授)為了出賣收藏，邀請乙(美術商)至家中參觀，乙認為其中一幅畫作 engchi U 是知名畫家所畫，但卻利用甲的不知情，以較低的價格買下。在此案例中，德國. 法認為乙具有專業地位，且甲對乙說明的依賴亦合理，故乙有說明義務而可以成立詐欺或締約上過失。但在英國法，由於英國法認為除非具有特殊忠誠關係，否. 8. 例如：雙方當事人主體地位是否對等；契約性質是否為最大善意契約；陳述的內容是事實還是意見，若僅是意見則相對人的信賴是否合理；資訊接近及取得的難易度為何；他方是否有所謂一般性的揭露義務以及一方的詢問是否代表他方便有據實陳述義務等。 9 例如：歸責要件的高低，舉證責任的轉換，損害賠償的類型化。 10 Sykes v. Taylor─Rose 2004 EWCA Civ 299,(2004). 11 POOLE JILL ,TEXTBOOK ON CONTRACT LAW 521 (2010). 12 不動產說明書應記載及不得記載事項中關於成屋的(四)其他重要事項即言明：「建物（專有部分）於產權持有期間是否曾發生兇殺、自殺、一氧化碳中毒或其他非自然死亡之情形，若有，應敘明。」 13 邱琦，凶宅與純粹經濟上損失，月旦裁判時報，第 7 期，頁 26─27，2011 年 2 月。 4. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.012.2018.F10.

(11) 則不承認資訊揭露義務，故沉默原則上不構成不實陳述，且甲的錯誤亦非被乙先前的行為所誘發，故不構成不實陳述。此觀點立於資訊有價的觀點，要求一方放 14 棄資訊優勢是不公和無效率的。. 由上述二案例可以明顯感受出，隨著對於各變數所賦予的權重值不同，所呈現出來的權利義務樣貌便有極大的差異。因此，該如何就說明義務的要件和效果予以適當評價，並和我國其餘體系整合在法律上是值得探討的議題。本文希望能藉此對我國法上締約階段風險分配的重構有所助益。. 政治大. 三、與我國其他相關制度的檢討. 立. 積極或消極行為所引起的錯誤資訊影響層次廣泛，橫向面如消費者保護法、. ‧ 國. 學. 金融消費者保護法、保險法和證券交易法15。縱向面亦涉及物之瑕疵擔保、不完全給付、締約上過失、錯誤和侵權行為。因此，關於此類紛爭的救濟管道，首先. ‧. 應看是否為特別法規範之範疇，再看是否為契約之內容而依不完全給付或依對價. y. Nat. sit. 衡平制度物之瑕疵擔保處理，最後依締約上過失或錯誤、詐欺以及侵權行為解決。. n. al. er. io. 而從瑕疵擔保、締約上過失以及詐欺來看，我國對於締約前的資訊義務，似乎偏. i n U. v. 向採取「故意」的立場，是否足以適切評價，有重新檢討的空間，以及彼此間的. Ch. engchi. 關聯為何，都是值得探討的議題。例如(一)物之瑕疵擔保制度目的在於對價衡平，是無過失責任，但在民法第 360 條卻加以出賣人之主觀要件而顯得突兀，體系上是否有將此部分交由不完全給付或不實陳述來解決的可能。(二)不實陳述和不完全給付之間若依實務目前穩定之見解，由於民法第 245 條之 1 限於契約未成立時且附隨義務於契約成立生效後方能發生16，因此並無競合的可能。然此評價是否 14. 楊宏暉，締約前資訊義務之研究，國立政治大學法律學系博士論文，頁 4─5，2009 年。如保險法第 64 條的說明義務，證券交易法第 32 條發行市場的公開說明書不實及第 20 條之 1 流通市場的財報不實。 16 如最高法院 103 年度台上字第 144 號判決：「惟所謂契約之附隨義務，乃指契約成立生效後，為輔助實現債權人之給付利益或保護債權人人身或財產上利益，於契約發展過程基於誠信原則或契約漏洞之填補所生之義務，屬於契約整體義務群之一環，與契約之主給付義務及從給付義務相同，必於契約成立生效後始能發生，在此之前，尚無契約之附隨義務可言。」 5 15. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.012.2018.F10.

(12) 適當，不無疑義。(三)我國錯誤的規定過於嚴苛而導致難以適用，依民法第 88 條必須非由表意人自己之過失者為限方得撤銷意思表示，且依民法第 91 條，若相對人善意無過失，應另負損害賠償責任。立法原意是為了保障交易安全，但未考量若該資訊錯誤是由相對人之不實陳述所引起，則就風險分配的角度來看，不管相對人之陳述有無故意過失，該不利亦似乎應由其承擔為是。因此應該將錯誤此一制度更加細膩的區分方得以適當評價風險分配。. 第三節研究範圍與方法. 政治大. 第一項研究範圍. 立. 本文研究範圍可分為四大部分：. ‧ 國. 學. 第一部分在第二章，將我國締約上過失制度民法第 245 條之 1 加以爬梳，將. ‧. 其定位以及在締約過程中各類型的損害(一)生命身體健康等固有利益的損害，(二). Nat. sit. y. 與涉及契約目的之維護相關的說明義務和契約促進義務的違反所產生的問題，在. n. al. er. io. 實務運作以及學說批評，作較完整性的整理。. Ch. i n U. v. 第二部分在第二章的附論，切入點為實務將締約上過失的適用限於「契約未. engchi. 成立」此一前提，此一限制絕大多數的杜絕了適用可能。在比較法上不論是德國法，英國法，日本法均所未見。我國侵權行為承受德國體系而來，救濟範圍較為狹小，此亦為締約上過失制度發展的原因之一。相較之下，日本法侵權行為的救濟範圍原則上較我國為廣，但其仍肯認契約嗣後成立仍得有締約上過失存在的空間，更可顯見我國法上此一限制的不恰當。因此，本文將以動機錯誤的案例類型來剖析我國法立法者預設的制度是否足夠保障。第三部分在第三章，探討重心為「承載能量不足的要件規範─以不實陳述為中心」，首先探討英國法的不實陳述條例。英國法上除了在消極的資訊揭露義務 6. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.012.2018.F10.

(13) 採取較為保守看法外，其餘在效果上均較我國法更為豐富多樣，極具參考價值。另外，比較法的部分亦會參酌國際統一法律文件及日本法關於意思表示瑕疵的規定，尤其日本法債編的修法過程中，原本亦有將他方不實陳述所惹起的錯誤規定於草案，但於最新修正的版本卻仍將之除去。將之相互比較亦頗具實益。而在比較法的介紹後，本文將進一步嘗試以經濟分析的角度論述資訊風險的分配，以期作為我國法相關討論的建議。第四部分在第四章，如前文所述，資訊的錯誤亦涉及物之瑕疵擔保，不完全給付和錯誤等問題。在本章會將不實陳述與上述三者間做一個統整性的探討。. 學. ‧ 國. 立. 政治大第二項研究方法. 法非從天下，非從地出，發於人間，合乎人心而已。─ 慎子。. Nat. y. ‧. 第一款經濟分析及比較法分析. io. sit. 所謂的經濟分析，某程度也是人性規則的體現，因為一旦法規越符合一般人. n. al. er. 素樸的法感情，越符合一般人對規範價值的想像，那麼彼此間學習規範及違反規. Ch. i n U. v. 範所付出的成本也會越低，對於法院判決的預期可能性也會越高。就如同我們在. engchi. 尋找所謂的線性關係一樣，找出多數點坐落處的相同特徵和關係為何，以作為分類基礎。而越能跨越時空背景的價值當然就越有人性規範的底蘊，例如禁反言、平等原則及比例原則等。學者常引用的比較法研究，亦是此一立場的體現。我國民法繼受德國，對於德國法的重要觀念應較不陌生，因此，本文此次欲藉由較多的英國法及日本法論述，來提供不一樣的面相。 1960 年代以降，經濟學和法律學這二個看起來似乎遙遠但卻息息相關的學科醞釀了許多火花，法律經濟分析的歷史、理論、方法及侷限，對於人類交易成本理解的和制度的訂立都提供了不一樣的視野，因此本文會嘗試以上述脈絡來分 7. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.012.2018.F10.

(14) 析資訊風險的重構，以期能提供建議。. 第二款案例研究在案例研究上，本文除了整理我國法院實務上的案例，以對我國的現狀有基本的認識，也提出我國判決實務上之問題。外國法部分，本文主要介紹英國法重要判決，以便瞭解其實務見解的演進與發展過程。希望藉由具體案例的呈現，作為我國法上解釋適用之參考。. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. 8. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.012.2018.F10.