抵銷制度所具有之簡易清償機能與公平維持機能已廣受我國學說與實務承認，惟抵銷制度是否具有擔保機能一事，則尚未受到充分之關注與討論而仍存有疑義。 所謂抵銷之擔保機能者，係指在互有相對立債權債務的主被動債權人間，若被動債權人資力不足且同時對多數債權人負有債務時，身為多數債權人之一的主動債權人，可藉由抵銷權之行使，使其與被動債權人間相對立之債務立即消滅，產生主動債權人藉由抵銷權之行使，令自身債權獲得較其他債權人優先受償、主動債權如同受被動債權擔保般的效果。 此一抵銷權之擔保機能反映在法律規定上，與之關連最密切者，乃民法第340條。蓋民法第340條乃規範多數債權人（扣押債權人與主動債權人）於競爭何人得自被動債權人財產受償時，抵銷權行使應否受限制的問題。因此，若承認擔保機能為抵銷制度之本質機能，則在民法第340條之解釋適用上，即應擴大允許被動債權受扣押後抵銷權之行使範圍，使此一抵銷制度之本質機能得以充分發揮。 然觀察我國法將發現，目前我國學說對於抵銷制度本質上是否具有擔保機能，討論仍極為有限，此種討論不足的情況延伸至審判實務上，使各級法院在解釋適用民法第340條時，因欠缺理論基礎，導致對系爭條文之解釋適用存在有見解分歧、法律適用不安定的問題，凸顯了對於抵銷之擔保機能進行深入研究，並統一民法第340條解釋適用之必要性。 對上述問題，因日本民法第511條與我國民法第340條規範幾近相同，且該國判例學說長期以來已累積豐富之討論成果，可為我國法解釋適用之參考。在整理該國判例學說與修法動態後，可得出下列三點啟發：第一、「擔保機能」僅是多種「抵銷對第三人效力理論基礎」的可能選項之一，其存在對於抵銷制度並非絕對。第二、日本法上對於民法第511條之所以存在多種解釋方法，此亦係肇因於其背後對於「抵銷對第三人效力理論基礎」的選擇不同所致。第三、在決定是否以「抵銷制度本質具擔保機能」作為「抵銷對第三人效力理論基礎」後，尚須注意此一結論是否能與扣押命令效力範圍、民法第511條之體系定位、期限利益喪失約款之對第三人效力等周邊問題建立邏輯一貫而無矛盾的解釋。 將對日本法之研究成果運用在我國法的解釋適用上，可自民法第299條第2項之規範方式推知我國立法者有意採取「對抵銷期待利益之保護」作為「抵銷對第三人效力理論基礎」。考量民法第340條與民法第299條第2項同為抵銷制度下「抵銷對第三人效力」規範，故兩規範在解釋適用上應採取相同之理論基礎。換言之，民法第340條所規範的「抵銷與扣押」關係中，主動債權人之所以可藉由主張抵銷而獲得較扣押債權人優先受償的類似擔保效果，實為保障主動債權人對抵銷之期待利益所產生的事實上反射效果，並非抵銷制度本質上有何擔保機能存在。而在否定抵銷制度本質上具有擔保機能後，則可以此結論作為解決相關問題之起點，逐一推論出民法第340條應如何解釋適用，以及其他周邊問題的解答。 / Expediency in satisfying debts and keeping fair treatment among creditors are two major functions well acknowledged by academics and the judiciary in Taiwan. However, a possible third function - securing unpaid loans through claiming an offset (hereinafter referred to as securing function) - has not yet been fully discussed. The purpose of this thesis is to fill this gap in the understanding of the issue. Securing function of offset means that in the situation that two people are each others’ creditors and one of them is insolvent, the solvent creditor can assert their right of offset. To claim an offset allows a creditor/debtor to have his/her unpaid loans preferentially satisfied before other creditors’ claims. Allowing a creditor to claim offset results in the same effect as the creditors’ loan having been secured. In the civil code of the R.O.C, Article 340 is most relevant to the question of whether the right of offset includes the securing function. Article 340 stipulates that, “When an obligation has been attached by an order of the court, the third debtor of such obligation shall not take a claim which he has acquired from the creditor after the attachment to offset the obligation attached.” The question in point is: • whether the limitation on the garnishee’s right of offset is only limited to his counter claim against his creditor generated after the issuance of an attachment order, or • should it be expanded to all of his counter claims, including those generated before the issuance of an attachment order. The key to answer the abovementioned question lies in whether securing function is within the intention of the legislator in enacting Article 340 of the Civil Code of the R.O.C. After scrutinizing essays related to the right of offset in the Civil Code of the R.O.C., it is clear that scholars in Taiwan have not discussed the questions enough yet. The lack of academic research results in considerable confusion in judicial practices when applying Article 340 of the Civil Code of the R.O.C. Japanese scholars and legal precedents of the Japanese Supreme Court have been exploring the securing function issue of the right of offset for more than half a century. There is the same question regarding Article 511 of the Japanese Civil Code, and the article is almost identical to Article 340 of the R.O.C Civil Code. We consider it to be helpful to review their research and take it as our reference. The gist of Japanese academic research and legal precedents regarding the above-mentioned issue, can be summarized as follows. First, acknowledging securing function of the offset right is not necessary in constructing the theory of the right of offset; second, explanations for Article 511 of the Japanese Civil Code in Japan have not yet been unified. There are still controversies in Japanese scholars' research and legal precedents regarding the issue, as Japanese scholars and Japan's Supreme Court continue to offer various theories regarding the legislative intent of Article 511. Third, whether securing function can be considered as within the legislative intent of Article 511 further relates to the solutions to the following three questions: the scope of attachment orders, the role of the right of offset within the whole of the Japanese civil law system, and the influence of acceleration clauses. The above-mentioned research on Japanese law concludes that the legislative intent of the Japanese Civil Code is not to confer securing function to the right of offset, but to protect legitimate expectations of the debtors to have the chance of claiming offset. The same conclusion can be derived from observing the design of paragraph 2 of Article 299 of the Civil Code of the R.O.C., which regulates the influence of the right of offset on the third party creditors (hereinafter the “third party effect”). Paragraph 2 of Article 299 stipulates that, “At the time of the debtor being notified, if the debtor had the claim against the transferor [sic], and if such claim matures before or at the same time as the claim transferred does, he/she may claim for offset against the transferee.” To clarify, when a debt is transferred from the original creditor to a new creditor (hereinafter transferee), the debtor can only claim an offset against the transferee with a counter claim that matures before or at the same time as the transferred claim does. The same design in the Japanese law leads to the conclusion that the legislative intent in designing the third party effect of the right of offset is based on protecting the legitimate expectation of the debtor in having the chance to claim the right of offset. We propose that it is helpful to construe Taiwan’s system in the same way. To clarify the conclusion further, Paragraph 2 of Article 299 and Article 340 of the Civil Code of the R.O.C. both regulate the third party effect of the right of offset. The same theory of interpretation should be adopted in order to keep the Taiwanese civil law system coherent. Article 340 provides that a garnishee can only claim the right of offset when his/her counter claim against the creditors originated before the date of issuance of the attachment order. We should construe that the legislative intent is to protect debtors’ expectation of a chance to claim an offset identical to the construction of the paragraph 2 of Article 299. Although the operation of Article 340 allows the debtor/creditor to satisfy his/her claim preferentially before other creditors under some circumstances, the so-called “securing function” of right of offset can only be considered as a collateral effect and is not within the legislative intent of the regulation. After denying the legislative intent of securing function of the right of offset, the thesis further clarifies the answers to three questions relating to the third party effect of the right of offset: (1) the limitation on the right of offset stipulated in Article 340 shall be construed as an exception in the civil law system of Taiwan; (2) the scope of an attachment order shall not reach the right of offset of the third party (garnishee) in principle; and (3) the acceleration clause shall not influence the rights of third parties.

工程契約中當事人間之權利義務關係為民法之承攬契約。而依民法第492條之規定，承攬人就所完成之工作物負有瑕疵擔保責任。本文係以承攬人之瑕疵擔保責任為中心，並就工程契約中可能涉及之相關問題為探討。本文之重點為：首先就承攬契約之瑕疵擔保責任為論述，並於其中輔以工程契約中相關爭議，以求就瑕疵擔保責任為整體性之認識；次就工程契約履約標的之瑕疵存在時點分別討論，區分各個工程履約階段，認為工作物之瑕疵於工程完工、工程驗收階段，及驗收合格後之法律效果應分別而論。其中主要涉及工程瑕疵與完工之認定，本文認為二者應分別而論，工作之暇疵與完工係屬二事，應採用英美法中實質完工之見解；而就工程驗收合格後對瑕疵擔保責任之影響，則認為工程驗收合格並不會因此而免除承包商之瑕疵擔保責任，在工程驗收期間潛在不易察覺之部分，或必須經過一段時間之運作始能發現之瑕疵，在瑕疵發見期間內發現，承包商仍應依民法負瑕疵擔保責任。另關於工作物存有瑕疵時，定作人可否以承攬人尚未修補瑕疵而拒付報酬之問題，本文認為，工程契約之業主於驗收合格後即應依規定及契約約定給付報酬，業主就工作物之瑕疵應主張瑕疵擔保請求權或保固之相關約定，不得逕予拒付報酬。後就承攬人之瑕疵擔保責任與工程保固責任間為比較，本文從二者之差異及工程契約之實務，認為二者屬不同之請求權，採自由競合之方式，業主得採有利者或併同行使。最後為本文之結論。

摘要 政府採購法72條第2項減價收受規定，可說是機關處理驗收之例外規定，關係機關採購後續使用情形及廠商權益甚鉅。本文以工程採購為研究對象，以工程採購著眼於工作之完成，來探討採購法驗收之法律效果，以釐清減價收受之效力。 依採購法72條第2項規定，明定減價收受之要件，包括驗收結果與規定不符、不妨礙安全及使用需求、通常效用或契約預定效用，經機關檢討不必拆換或拆換卻有困難、得於必要時，機關得採減價收受，因此機關驗收時，發現與規定不符，仍須滿足前開之要件，方得採減價收受，否則應依採購法72條第1項規定，請廠商限期改善。 從民法概念來看，減價收受無所謂過失責任，基本上肇因於廠商債務不履行，債務不履行可分為給付不能或不完全給付，二者區分實益在於給付是否可能，亦關係機關評估是否辦理減價收受及後續損害賠償問題。此外，減價收受亦關係工程承攬契約之瑕疵擔保責任與保固責任，以及減價收受之額度與違約金等相關問題。本論文希望藉由理論探討，及法院判決、調解建議及仲裁等相關實務案例，以釐清減價收受所遭遇之相關問題。 / The acceptance with price-reduction under Article 72, paragraph 2 of the “Government Procurement Act”, could be said an exceptional part of the inspection and acceptance under the Act. It is regulated to the interests and duties between the two parties of governmental purchasement. This study intentioally analyzes the “construction work”, which is used to focus on the completeness of definit work and to cope with the contract requirements. When it happens to be accepted with price reduction, what is the reason and what will be going on? According to the Article 72, paragraph 2 of the “Government Procurement Act”, where the result of inspection indicates any non-conformity with the contractual requirements, but the non-conformity neither hinders the safety or use required nor decreases the general function or the function designated by the contract, an acceptance with price-reduction may be conducted under conditions that the entity has determined that there is no need or it is difficult to make replacement. Otherwise, the entity should require the suppliers make improvement within a time-limit according to the paragraph 1 of Article 72. Based on the concepts of the Civil Code, the acceptance with the price-reduction does not depend on responsibility for intentional or gross negligent acts. It is caused by the suppliers’ non-performance, when the performance becomes impossible or imcomplete. The governmental entity will also transfer to claim conpensation for the injury. This issue also involves the obligation of suppliers to repair the defects within the specified period, not only after the inspection and acceptance. The reasonable amount of price-reduction and the penalties are also important to be disscussed. This study wants to clarify all the issues and the effects of the acceptance with price-reduction through the theory discussion and the reviewing of juridical cases, mediations and arbitrations.

本研究以Amraoui & Hitier (2008)隨機回復率模型(BNP model)以及Andersen and Sidenius(2004)隨機風險因子承載係數模型(RFL model)為基礎，進行對分劵信用價差、債劵群組累積損失機率分配，以及對基準違約相關係數的影響等分析。我們發現當回復率改成動態後可以反映更多系統風險，權益分劵信用價差絕大多數都會下降。在累積損失機率分配方面加入BNP後變為較平滑；改用RFL則會使機率分配在小額損失處又產生一次起伏；同時考量BNP與RFL會使小額損失發生機率減少、極端損失機率增加。實作三組市場資料時，發現不管市場違約機率高或低，共同考慮BNP與RFL的模型在四個模型中是最適合擬和市價的，顯示在市價的校準上有更多彈性，特別是在承擔名目本金60~100%先償分劵的校準上只有共同考慮BNP與RFL的模型能發揮功效。

我國公權力對消費定型化契約條款之行政管制，有愈趨嚴密之勢，觀諸國內目前的研究文獻，卻多為個別消費定型化契約類型的研究，針對其整體性的研究文獻卻相當稀少。本篇論文嘗試以較宏觀之角度，從定型化契約條款規制緣由之發展、德國相關契約管制理論之討論，以及契約之法律經濟分析等面向，以現行消費者保護法的規範架構為基礎，以演繹具體之消費定型化契約條款內容控制標準。嗣以此等內容控制標準檢視我國目前有關消費定型化契約條款的行政規制模式，尤其針對定型化契約應記載及不得記載事項的性質，及其相關內容加以分析討論。除此之外，由於我國目前中央主管機關所公告之各類定型化契約應記載及不得記載事項甚多，本文亦嘗試著將這些應記載及不得記載事項予以類型化，並逐一地提出比較評析。 第壹章「緒論」：各國對消費定型化契約條款多有採取立法、行政及司法等相關規制措施加以導正，我國法制（即立法及司法規則）因此亦深受影響，尤其是繼受德國法。惟我國有關消費定型化契約條款行政規制法制的發展則與德國法制完全脫勾，目前係廣泛透過行政立法之方式，發展頗具臺灣特色的管制模式。針對此種運用公權力以積極介入私人間法律關係的發展，從憲法及行政法角度而言，是否違反法治國原則？從民法的契約自由及契約正義而言，是否妥適？公私法彼此間的競合交錯是否造成過度管制的情形？期藉由初步討論能拋磚引玉。 第貳章「消費定型化契約條款管制之發展」：從定型化契約條款規制緣由之發展、德國相關契約管制理論之討論，以及契約之法律經濟分析等面向，探討消費定型化契約條款管為何要加以管制，以及管制所須注意的面向。 第參章「消費定型化契約條款行政規制之發展」：由於立法、司法規制的功能不足，國家遂被進一步地授權以行政手段介入管制。國家藉由行政規制填充、創造私法自治的外圍框架，理論上並非完全無著力空間，也因此造就我國消費定型化契約條款行政規制的發展。而根據我國目前實務，立法者為避免人民權利保障的疏漏，多有授權行政機關針對消費定型化契約條款進行管制的情形，因此傳統論者基於國家應保持中立或公權力不能妨害契約自由等觀點反對行政規制的立場，似未能切中問題重點，本文以為應就「何時適宜動用行政介入手段」、「動用何種行政手段」、「法治國」、「效用」等面向深入討論，並注意所採用的手段是否逸脫消費定型化契約條款的管制緣由。 第肆章「消費定型化契約條款行政規制之種類」：從行政指導、法規命令及行政處分等行政作用面向分述消費定型化契約條款行政規制之種類。 第伍章「違反行政規制之法律效果」：從行政罰及消費者保護官的不作為訴訟分述違反行政規制的法律效果。 第陸章「各類型行政規制之檢討」：針對前兩章消費定型化契約條款行政規制之種類及違反行政規制之法律效果進行檢討，該章是本篇論文的重心。 第柒章「法制上之建議-代結論」：延續第陸章的檢討，對我國現行消費定型化契約條款行政規制法制提出建言。 / With the ongoing changes of official role in the arbitration between the civil contracts, the debate of whether it should be stepping into or reducing is still up in the air. Although both sides have based on profound theories, the administrative authority of ROC still has tighter and tighter control on consumption of standard contract terms. In light of domestic study on such subject, more paper emphasize on individual type of study instead of the comprehensive one. Therefore this paper claims that the administrative authority should aggressively play a role to create the sound framework to provide necessary substances and service to assure the function of the market mechanism. However, its intervention of the contract content freedom should be taken by more conservative approach. Under this circumstance, this study is trying to illustrate the origin and the development of moderation on standard contract terms, also with the related discussion over contract moderation in German, and the analysis in law and economics over civil contracts. Moreover this study elaborates the concrete consumption of standard contract terms under the consumers’ protection regulation architecture. Hopefully we can reexamine the current administrative control over the consumption of standard contract terms, especially for those the standard contract terms should be posted and those should not. We can evaluate the pros and cons about that later. Besides, due to lots of regulation over those should be or not to provisions, this study is also trying to classify all to make comparison and analysis one by one for your own view.

工程契約係具特殊性質之承攬契約，而工程契約之開工、完工、驗收進程中，可能遭遇不同之風險事件，故本文先於第二章對工程契約之開工、完工、驗收及後續保固期間之意義及相關爭議為概略性之論述。 其次，於第三章先以一般承攬契約之風險分配為出發，就承攬契約之危險負擔、瑕疵擔保責任及定作人協力義務為概述，而在工程契約之風險分配原則上，採用「優勢風險承擔人原則」作為立論基礎，認為工程契約之風險應由對風險較具「預見能力」、「控制能力」及「規避能力」者承擔；進而就工程進程中不同階段可能遭遇之風險事件，建構可能之風險分配原則，並探究工程契約中常見「棄權條款」，包含工期展延、物價調整及權利行使期間等棄權條款，是否與合理之工程風險分配原則相符；另本文就工程保險契約制度為簡要之說明，並論述工程保險在工程實務中之地位，而將工程保險契約認定為工程契約分散風險之重要機制。 於第四章，特別針對國內論者甚少討論之「完工後驗收前」期間之實務爭議為判決整理及評析，而以本文建構之風險分配藍圖，對包含完工後驗收前之先行使用、減價驗收、部分驗收、試運轉及第三人侵權等爭議問題為分析。

美國次級房貸在1990年代中期曾經十分興盛，不過之後因LTCM危機，加上Fed採取連續升息政策，許多次級房貸放款的業者面臨資金流動性問題，以及次級房貸利潤不夠高，迫使許多業者退出這個市場，1998年亞洲金融風暴,美國雖未受波及,然自2000年開始因網路科技泡沫影响及2001年911恐怖攻擊,經濟衰退連續降息後，次級房貸在美國持續降息期間再度大幅成長，原因包括當時美國房價上升速度快、不動產市場流動性充裕，投資人增加對收益率較高產品的需求，導致更多次級房貸需求。 國際資金游動頻繁，衍生性產品及不動產證券化盛行，信用卡債、擔保債權憑證(CDO)、資產抵押證券被分割、包裝成證券或基金產品賣出，次級房貸風暴發生，間接亦影響到全球投資在上列產品之銀行、避險基金、機構法人、退休金等等…導致全球股票市場大跌，引發整個金融信用環境惡化，可能引發不良金融連鎖反應，從而導致更大的經濟金融危機。 美林證券、花旗銀行、歐美各大銀行相繼宣布資產減損,台灣國內銀行、保險公司亦陸續出現認列資產減損金額,只要一有次級房貸不利之消息出現,全球股市應聲而倒,截至目前問題所在雖略知一二,然國外金融業界因資訊較透明,其影響已漸公佈及擴大中,國內金融業則仍多採取保守態度,但亦逐漸依規定認列財產損失,然而問題是否已近尾聲,風險是否完全受控制則說法不一。 次級房貸問題的主要原因是相關金融商品證券化,層層包裝成各種衍生性產品,於次級房貸風暴發生後,信用風險連鎖反應造成相關產品無流動性,被隱藏的風險暴露後原有的信評機制幾乎全部失效,層層包裝的風險因事先未被定價,風暴後更無法估算其所會波及之影響,Mark to Market及34號公報迫使全球企業對次級房貸投資相關產品之損失提列資產減損,更加重各項產品流動性之停滯,信用危機造成信心危機，層層結構性產品及再轉投資,造成信用無虞的公司也遭魚池之殃,次級房貸衍生之金融商品,因主要購買者多為金融業或保險業或再包裝後出售予投資客,其後繼影響更是難以估計。 本論文內容除探討美國次級房貸定義、對美國國內及全球之影響、美國政府及各國政府的因應政策、截至目前影響及預計可能還會再出現影響,及因次級房貸之崩潰及衍生之金融產品之跌價所影響的層面與近年來國內外銀行爭相推展個人金融事業及財富管理事業的成立,是否有相當之關係,信用評等、風險控管、及定價在此風暴是否扮演重要角色,但卻又明顯失控?為避免類似情況再發生,應如何因應與防範?進而以提出個人對此事件探討之結論及省思後之建議。