工程之承包商除依照工程契約，應如期完工外，尚應確保工程得以如質完工，亦即承包商需對工作物負擔瑕疵擔保責任，而不論是仲裁、調解或是訴訟案件，因瑕疵所生之爭議，實屬常見，殊值重視。 本文就承包商工程瑕疵擔保責任之爭議略分為三部分：第一部份為工程契約之性質為何？其中關於工程契約之定性將影響？工程契約種類？外國契約範本應為如何之適用？此等將於本文第二章討論。 第二部分是如瑕疵係因業主指示或提供材料所導致者，承包商是否仍須負擔瑕疵擔保責任？進步而言，於監造單位於材料施作前已先行檢驗材料，如瑕疵因材料所生者，則應由何者擔負該瑕疵風險較為合理？又如係驗收通過事後發現瑕疵者是否會改變承包商之瑕疵擔保之責？於此確認承包商之瑕疵擔保責任範疇。另外，工程瑕疵因如何認定亦屬該部分探討之核心。 第三部分主要係依照工程流程探討各工程階段所遇到的工程瑕疵問題作一分析檢討：1、施工中：主要係針對施工中如業主已發現瑕疵可否事先主張瑕疵擔保責任？估驗款之性質為何？ 2、完工：完工之定義？完工與瑕疵有無關係及關係為何？ 3、完工至驗收合格前：承包商有無重作義務？減少報酬請求權的計算方式？減價收受制度與減少報酬之異同？常見工程契約之損害賠償為何？ 4、保固：保固性質為何？其與法定瑕疵擔保責任有何異同？保固期間與法定瑕疵擔保期間為何？ 就上揭議題本文先指出我國工程實務常見爭議，再以日本及德國學說與實務之比較法相關研究出發，另輔以外國契約範本例如AIA、FIDIC以及日本契約範本為比較，並提出本文之見解及解決方案，以期能解決實務上的適用問題及對學說之爭議提出一己之見。

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.