商品（服務）禮券之應用行之有年，其對業者具有建立顧客詳細資訊、預收現金周轉金與刺激消費者需求等好處；而消費者有時於獲得預售商品憑證時，享有一定折扣之利益，以此增加顧客購買意願，並可將之轉交於他人或日後使用，減少現金攜帶與交易之不便利性，如果交易能夠順利履行，則禮券發行業者與消費者將可達到原預定雙贏目標。 惟相關業者之償付能力與消費者權益之保障，全憑業者自律而缺乏法制保障，而發行業者良莠不齊，交易糾紛時有所聞，例如：水都健康休閒中心、高峰百貨、新糖主義、亞力山大等倒閉事件，消費者均在不知情之情形下，往往僅見銷售時之折扣，而輕忽了預付型交易之風險，最後均造成消費者權益遭受重大損失。 　　政府為抑制通貨膨脹，防止商業信用擴張，限制公司藉由商品禮券之發售募集資金，乃由行政院於民國62年時，以國家總動員法第18條為依據，發布了商品禮券發售管理辦法，透過主管機關財政部之嚴格控管，對於持券人之保護甚為周密，消費糾紛因而減少甚多，民國77年，政府宣布解嚴，財政部認為商品禮券之發行已無管理之必要，而於民國78年時宣布廢止商品禮券規範管理辦法。 　　廢止商品禮券發售管理辦法後，業者往往浮濫發行商品（服務）禮券，但業者償付保證責任與消費者權益保障問題欠缺法規保障，致使交易糾紛頻傳，行政院乃指定經濟部依據消費者保護法第17條規定，公告零售業等商品（服務）禮券定型化契約應記載及不得記載事項，而由於各行各業均有發行禮券情形，各主管機關依據上開範本，本諸職權自行公告，主要內容共計「三要八不」，除了履約保證制度外，並進一步規範諸多不利於消費者之不合理定型化契約條款，禁止出現禮券之使用上，例如：不得記載使用期限、餘額不得消費、限制使用地點、範圍、截角無效等不合理之使用限制、發行人得片面解約之條款、預先免除發行人故意及重大過失責任、違反其他法律強制禁止規定或為顯失公平或欺罔之事項、廣告僅供參考等，藉以導正商業秩序及維護消費者權益。 　　日本為工商業高度發展國家，其在百貨業與服務業中發行與使用預付卡非常頻繁，例如啤酒券、清酒券、贈禮券、商品券等；此種具有預付卡性質之票券與磁卡，日本將之統稱為「前払式証票」或「プリペイドカード」，意為預付式憑證，這些票券上大多明確地標示面值或物品數量。對上述商品，於1989年12月22日（平成元年）訂定「有關預付式憑證的限制等有關的法律」（前払式証票の規制等に関する法律，以下簡稱「預付式憑證規制法」）、施行令（平成2年政令193號）、施行規則（平成2年大藏省令33號）與保證金規則（平成2年大藏令1號）等，相關法制與管理規範周延，應可作為我國未來訂定商品（服務）禮券或預付型交易管理制度之參考。 　　消費者購買禮券，已預先支付價金予發行業者，禮券性質即等同現金，目前商品（服務）禮券定型化契約應記載及不得記載事項，規定現行商品禮券之發行人履約保證機制有：金融機構提供足額履約保證；市占率至少5%以上同業同級互保；於金融機構開立信託專戶；由商業同業公會連帶保證協定；其他經主管機關許可，並經行政院消費者保護委員會同意之履約保證方式等。惟履約保證制度將增加業者之營運成本，且因禮券使用者不特定，金額與使用期間難以掌握，目前金融機構基於風險性之考量，承作意願有限，且多對發行業者加諸種種限制，均造成制度推動之困難，惟本文以為，發行人之履約保證責任於商品（服務）禮券制度中，實具有舉足輕重之地位，故本文擬分別就履約保證責任及發行成本與適用範圍進行探討，期能對本項議題有所貢獻。 　　有鑒於禮券發行之金額龐大，唯有健全商品（服務）禮券之管理機制，方可對消費者權益產生保障。本文擬從「落實資訊揭露與說明義務」、「建置消費者保障機制」、「強化政府管理機制」及「推動制定預付型商品（服務）管理法」等方面加以闡述，期能藉由相關管理保障機制之建構，改變國內現有市場生態，塑造嶄新而健康之經營環境。 / Use of the product (service) gift certificate dates back to many years ago. To businesses, the gift certificate has advantages in compiling detailed information about customers, obtaining cash for operations in advance, stimulating consumer demands, etc. To consumers, the gift certificate benefits them by sometimes offering certain discount when they obtain advance booked product certificates, so as to increase their willingness to buy; the certificate may further be transferred to others or used later on, so as to reduce the inconvenience of carrying cash and dealing. In a successful performance of this type of transaction, the certificate issuer and the consumer are going to reach a win-win situation as projected. However, the ability of related businesses to pay and the protection of consumer rights completely depend on self-discipline of businesses and lack legal protection, while there are bad as well as good issuers, and disputes in transactions are frequently reported, such as the bankruptcy scandals of Spa World Health Club, Kaomart, Twin’s Brothers Bakery, and Alexander Health Club. In those cases, consumers, not knowing enough about the companies, tend to only focus on the sales discount without paying attention to risks involved in prepaid transactions, and thus finally sustain huge loss in their rights and interests. To control the situation of inflation, prevent credit expansion of businesses, and restrain companies’ raising funds by sale of product gift certificates, in 1973 the Executive Yuan promulgated the Regulations on Sale of Product Gift Certificates based on Article 18 of the National Total Mobilization Act. Through strict regulation of the competent authority, Ministry of Finance, protection to certificate holders was complete and perfect, and consumer disputes thus decreased significantly. In 1988, the government declared lifting of martial law, when the Ministry of Finance considered it unnecessary to regulate issuance of product gift certificates, and then announced abolishment of the Regulations on Sale of Product Gift Certificates in 1989. After abolishment of the Regulations on Sale of Product Gift Certificates, businesses tend to over-issue product (service) gift certificates, but the issues of duty of businesses to guarantee reimbursement and protection of consumer rights still lacked legal resolution, so that disputes in transactions happened repeatedly. Therefore, the Executive Yuan instructed the Ministry of Economic Affairs to announce matters that shall and shall not be stated in standardized retail contracts for product (service) gift certificates pursuant to Article 17 of the Consumer Protection Act. And because issuance of gift certificates happens in every industry sector, each competent authority announces regulations under its own authority according to the above-mentioned sample, of which the main contents include “3 Must’s and 8 No’s” in total, where they not only provide the performance guarantee system, but also regulate many unreasonable provisions in standardized contracts that are unfavorable to consumers, and prohibit them from being included in gift certificates, such as expiration date of use, restriction to use of balance, limitation to location and scope of use, invalidation of detached certificate, clause entitling issuer to unilaterally cancel contract, advance waiver of issuer’s intentional and material negligence liability, clause against other mandatory laws and regulations, matters obviously unfair or deceptive, advertisement as reference only, etc., in order to correct commercial order and safeguard consumer rights. Japan is a highly industrialized and commercialized country, where its department stores and service providers frequently issue and use prepaid cards, such as beer coupons, sake coupons, gift coupons, and product certificates. These notes and magnetic cards of the nature of prepaid cards are generally called “前払式証票” or “プリペイドカード” in Japan, meaning prepaid certificates, most of which clearly indicate face value or product quantity. Regarding the aforesaid products, in December 22, 1989 (Year 1 of Heisei) Japan established the “Relevant Limitations on Prepaid Certificates Act” (前払式証票の規制等に関する法律, hereinafter called the “Prepaid Certificate Control Act”), its enforcement order (Year 2 of Heisei政Order No. 193), its enforcement rules (Year 2 of Heisei 大藏省 Order No. 33), the performance bond rules (Year 2 of Heisei 大藏 Order No. 1), etc., so pertinent legal systems and control regulations in Japan have been thorough, which should be able to serve as reference for our country to establish the regulatory framework for product (service) gift certificates or prepaid transactions in the future. Consumers purchase gift certificates by paying issuers the price in advance, so gift certificates equal cash in nature. Currently the matters that shall and shall not be stated in standardized contracts for product (service) gift certificates provide the existing performance guarantee mechanisms for issuers of product gift certificates as follows: financial institutions providing sufficient performance guarantee; similar businesses with a market share of 5% or above in the same trade insuring one another; opening special trust accounts with financial institutions; trade associations signing joint guarantee agreements; and other means of performance guarantee approved by the competent authorities and agreed by the Consumer Protection Commission of the Executive Yuan. However, the performance guarantee system will increase operating costs of businesses, the users of gift certificates cannot be specified, the amount and time of use are hard to control, and the financial institutions today are reluctant to undertake it in consideration of risks and often impose various limitations on issuers. The above reasons all make it difficult to promote the system. However, this paper argues that the performance guarantee responsibility of the issuer indeed plays a crucial role in the product (service) gift certificate system, so this paper plans to separately study performance guarantee responsibility and issuance costs and the applicable scope, expecting to make contribution to this issue. 　 Given the huge amount of issuance of gift certificates, only reinforcing the regulatory mechanism of product (service) gift certificates can protect consumer rights. This paper plans to argue from the perspectives of “implementing duty of information disclosure and explanation,” “constructing consumer protection mechanism,” “enhancing government regulatory mechanism” and “promoting establishment of the Prepaid Product (Service) Control Act,” with a hope to change the current domestic market landscape by building related regulatory and protection mechanisms, in order to form a new and healthy business environment.