由於概括條款欠缺明確的構成要件，其適用方法即有異於其他規定，本文係在探討概括條款具體化時合適的法學方法，並且以信用卡定型化契約之內容控制為例加以說明。
司法判決曾有認為信用卡循環息約款違反消費者保護法第12條第1項規定之誠信原則，但該判決經上訴後遭高院廢棄，現行司法實務見解在該問題上多與高院見解相同。事實上，該2判決結論的不同，起因於該2判決對相同事實有不同的評價，以及其分別使用不同的法學方法。是以引發幾項問題，包含該「評價」在法學方法中的意義為何？其所使用的法學方法有無學理之依據？
法律適用過程必須對事實作出「評價」可以在「價值法學」中找到其意義，由此也彰顯了其與傳統法學方法的不同。雖然「評價」無法避免其主觀性，但「價值法學」仍要求評價應儘量求其客觀，所以發展一個有助於評價活動客觀化的法學方法有其必要性。本文嘗試在所舉的案例中操作Larenz的法學方法，發現其方法仍有不足之處，進而思考「法律論證」可以提供的助益。
依學理之觀察，「法律論證」有助於評價活動的客觀化。在主要幾種法律論證方法中，本文認為「論題學」（類觀點學）應該是最適合運用於本案的方法之一，其與傳統法學方法的根本差異在於其本質為「修辭式推理」及「問題導向論證」。學理也認為，在論題學的各種觀點中，「結果」具有相當程度的重要性，所以本文介紹了學理上關於「結果考量」（後果考量)之論述，並建議其得與論題學結合運用。 / The method of applying general clauses is different from the method of applying other clauses due to general clauses are short of requisite elements. This Essay is discussing the methodology of materializing general clauses in jurisprudence and taking judicial review of the provisions in the credit card pre-formulated standard contracts for an example.
There was a judicial judgment awarded the revolving interest clause in the credit card pre-formulated standard contracts violate good faith principle in Consumer Protection Act article 12, section 1. However, the judgment was abandoned by the High Court. Now, almost all the courts’ perspectives about the issue are the same as the High Court. In fact, the different outcomes of the two judgments resulted from the different “evaluations” of the case fact and the different legal methods used in the judgments. The observation inspire us: what is the meaning of the evaluation in the legal method? Is there any academic basis for the legal method used in the judgments?
For “Jurisprudence of Evaluation”, evaluations are necessary when we applying provisions of the law. That is different from the traditional legal method. Although evaluations cannot be objective purely, Jurisprudence of Evaluation still requires evaluations as objective as possible. That’s why it’s necessary to improve the legal method to comply with the requirement. This essay also tries to use Larenz's legal method in the case mentioned before to figure out the shortcomings of the method and reflects on the advantages of “Legal Argumentation”.
According to academic research, Legal Argumentation is helpful to objective evaluations. In several methods of Legal Argumentation, this essay takes up the position that “Topic Argument” should at least be one of the best to the case mentioned before. The radical difference between Topic Argument and traditional legal method is that the former's essential is “Rhetorical Inference” and “Problem-oriented Argument”. Besides, according to academic research, “consequence” is a quite important perspective when we use Topic Argument. Therefore, this essay introduces “Consequentialist Argument” and proposes it can be used with Topic Argument.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:CHENGCHI/G0100651004 |
| Creators | 楊益昌, Yang, Yi Chang |
| Publisher | 國立政治大學 |
| Source Sets | National Chengchi University Libraries |
| Language | 中文 |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Rights | Copyright © nccu library on behalf of the copyright holders |
Page generated in 0.0027 seconds