頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 從德國實務新發展再談信用卡收單機構與特約商店的法律關係--兼論郵購交易之冒用風險分配=Credit Card Agreements and Risk Allocation in Telephone/Mail-Order System: The Legal Relation between Acquirer and Point-of-Sale |
---|---|
作 者 | 吳謹瑜; | 書刊名 | 政大法學評論 |
卷 期 | 87 民94.10 |
頁 次 | 頁191-266 |
分類號 | 562.39 |
關鍵詞 | 郵購交易; 信用卡; 收單機構; 財團法人聯合信用卡處理中心; 特約商店; 無因債務約束; 債權買賣; 債權讓與; 冒用風險; 扣款索回條款; Credit card; Online commerce; E-commerce; Mail-order; Telephone-order; Chargeback; Charge-back; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 學界對信用卡相關問題之研討,向來侷限於持卡人與發卡機構之法律關係。然而,特約商店及收單機構亦為信用卡運作不可或缺之當事人,不深究其所享權利或承擔之法律責任及風險,根本不足以呈現信用卡交易之全貌。尤其往昔提供討論基礎之持卡人、特約商店與發卡機構三方當 事人關係,早已成為過去式,與實際現況相去甚遠。無論法以對持卡人義務為重心,視收單機構為發卡機構履行輔助人的見解;或文獻以發卡機構與特約商店關係出發思考,認為收單機構為發卡機構的受任人、代理人的主張,恐均為一隅之見而失之偏頗。 時至今日,信用卡之運作不再以發卡機構與特學商店有任何法律關係為必要。易言之,就刷卡消費款項,特約商店之債務人是收單機構,而非過往眾所相信的發卡機構。而收單機構與特約商店間給付關係之法律性質,有論者謂為債權買賣或讓與。然此主張不僅明顯牴觸文義解釋,亦不符當事人利益及契約目的。按信用卡為一種支付工具,有代替現金之功能。而為達代替現金之契約目的,應讓收單機構對特約商店負擔之債務獨立於特約商店與持卡人基礎原因關係之外而存在,使特約商店之債權不受基礎原日關係之瑕疵或抗辯事由之影響。因此,收單機構與特約商店間之法律關係應解為無因債約束。無因債約束之「無因性」,其在成立暨抗辯關係之上之獨立性,讓收單機構與特約商店之權義關係簡明單純確定,符合交易迅速之要求。我國民法雖未設有無因債務約束的規定,然諸多學者認為無因債務約束契約,並不違反善良風俗,在民法上應認為有效。 再者,收單機構對特約商店所負之無因債務,係附有停止條件,並非絕對之付款義務。於一般交易,停止條件係以特約商店提出合乎約定之簽帳單為內容。在郵購交易,因收單機構通常會要求訂單內容之內容應記載持卡人姓名、卡別、卡號、有效期限、地址、電話、消費日期等資料,因此以提供節合要求記載之訂單請款聯為停止條件。 收單機構與特約商店之間的冒用風險分配,事涉兩大基本問題。第一,冒用風險應由何者承擔,再者,冒用風險可否被合理轉嫁,尤其是藉扣款索回條款移轉予特約商店是否公允。關於冒用風險應由格者承擔之間題,原則上應依據收單機構與特約商店之法律關係判斷。然而由於在郵購交易中,信用卡使用方式與一般交易有異,因此必須併加以考量當事人於該特殊交易情形之避險能力遠遜於收單機構,而應由收單機構承擔冒用風險為妥。此外,信用卡自製作完成時起,即存有遭冒用之風險。而特約商店無異於持卡人,皆為信用卡之使用人(Nutzer),且均無法完全倖免於信用卡冒用風險之威脅。是以冒用風險即屬信用卡「本質風險」,應由設計、經營者承擔。 既然與特約商店相比,收單機構顯然較具控制風險之能力,則允許收單機構將冒用風險轉嫁予承擔能力較弱特約商店之扣款索回條款,難謂公平。況且,扣款索回權利之約定,令特約商店負無過對特約商店之付款義既為附停止的無因債約束或無因債務,而扣款索回條款允許收單機構在停止條件成就的情況,亦無須對特約商店履行已生效力之付款債,限制之特約商店主主權利,妨礙契約目的達成,難認為有效。 |
英文摘要 | Credit cards have won legal attention primarily as regards the relation between cardholder and card-issuing bank. This is a too confined approach for several reasons: Firstly, as a matter of principle, no comprehensive legal review of credit card systems can be achieved without taking into consideration the relations between so-called acquiring companies (“acquirers”) and points of sale. This is because the model of triangular contractual relations between the card-issuing bank, the cardholder and the point of sale, which is still largely the basis for legal analysis, does not and has not for quite a while reflect (ed) the economic reality of credit card systems. It has been replaced in the wake of increased specialisation of the banking sector by a complex multi-party system of contractual relationships. In particular, the card-issuing bank is nowadays, as a rule, replaced vis-á-vis the points of sale by the acquirer. Secondly, in practical terms, the rise of telephone order/mail order systems as well as online auctions has pitched the success of credit cards as means of payment against the adequate risk allocation for credit card fraud between the acquirers/card issuing banks and the points of sale. Only recently the German Federal Supreme Court handed down decisions dealing with these fundamental issues, which excited quite varied responses from the legal and business community. In particular, parts of the business community went so far as to predict the imminent demise of credit cards as a means of payment in online transactions. This article purports to unravel step by step the legal fabric of complex credit card systems in order to define on this basis the economic and legal drivers for an adequate risk allocation between the different parties. In particular, information obligations, charge-back clauses and in general the mandatory limits of contractual risk allocation under general terms of contract used in business life gain prominent importance. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。