本文之研究方法係由最高法院近年來關於預售屋交易糾紛之判決中，歸納並分析最高法院對於此一糾紛適用法律之見解。購屋者與建商間簽訂之預售屋交易契約，最高法院向來均依民法中關於買賣之規定來處理當事人間權利義務關係。購屋者依約有先行繳付期款之義務，而房屋復需嗣興建完工後始得成為獨立之權利客體，而使建商得以履行其契約上之義務，因之對購屋者而言，其係信賴建商之信用而與之簽約並先為給付。 預售屋交易中，為銷售尚未興建之房屋，建商結合因應預售屋交易制度而生之代銷公司，以大量精美文宣、廣告、樣品屋等，吸引潛在交易相對人之注意進而與之訂約。締約時既無實物可供參酌，購屋者實以建商所提出之各種廣告為與之締約之基礎。惟因廣告之內容之誇大不實或文字界線模糊，而於嗣後生交易標的物有否合於契約約定之爭議，建商多以廣告乃要約之引誘、僅供參考等詞意圖卸責。本文亦討論消費者保護法中關於廣告之規範，並且探討最高法院之判決中，如何依個案締約之狀況，認為廣告得以雙方合意之基礎而成為契約之內容，及如何適用消費者保護法之相關規定。並討論常見糾紛中之建商所擬訂之定型化契約條款例如修改權保留條款、面積之解釋方式、沒收已付價金作為違約金條款及工期約定之條款。以及在房屋有物之瑕疵時，購屋者有何等權利及如何行使。

由汽車分期付款買賣坊間車商之定型化契約條款出發，依民法、消保法檢討相關約款之合理、正當性。

凶宅係我國房屋交易市場中之重要交易訊息，由於我國風俗民情之關係，凶宅之出賣人有時會隱瞞房屋為凶宅之情事，使得不願買受凶宅之買受人買到凶宅，出賣人和買受人之爭端即因此而產生，這些關於凶宅交易的爭端都有個前提問題就是-何謂凶宅？因此本文首先整理法院實務對凶宅之定義、內政部與法院實務對於出賣人就凶宅之說明義務範圍之認定及出賣人違反說明義務之法律效果。 再者，凶宅交易之法律問題除了違反說明義務之法律效果外，尚涉及物之瑕疵擔保責任及意思表示錯誤之問題，是本文以買賣瑕疵擔保與意思表示錯誤等規定為中心，整理法院實務與學說之見解，探討買受人於買到凶宅時是否可主張物之瑕疵擔保責任及意思表示錯誤。 / Hounted houses have always been considered important transactional information by housing trading market in Taiwan. Because of custom and tradition, a seller often conceals haunted houses from a buyer, and the buyer who does not want to buy a haunted house will buy that. Then, the dispute between the seller and the buyer will happen. Therefore, the article collects and analyzes the meaning of haunted houses defined by courts, which kinds of hounted houses sellers should tell buyers defined by courts and the Ministry of the Interior, and the legal effects of violating the duty to disclose. Moreover, the legal issues of the trades of hounted houses are warranty for defective goods and mistake of expression of intent besides the legal effects of violating the duty to disclose. Based on Civil Code, court decisions of District Court and High Court and scholars' opinions, the article discusses whether the buyer who bought a haunted house may revoke the expression or not and whether the seller may be responsible for a warranty when there is a defect in the thing he sold or not.