查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 最高行政法院有關不實廣告之裁判之評析=Comment on the Judgments of Misleading Advertising by the Administrative Supreme Court |
---|---|
作者 | 劉華美; Liou, Hwa-meei; |
期刊 | 臺北大學法學論叢 |
出版日期 | 20021200 |
卷期 | 51 2002.12[民91.12] |
頁次 | 頁1-33 |
分類號 | 585.8 |
語文 | chi |
關鍵詞 | 虛偽不實; 引人錯誤; 公平交易法; 廣告行為; 最高行政法院; 行政處分; 行政救濟; 建設公司; Misleading; Untrue; Fair trade law; Advertising; Administrative supreme court; Administrative act; Administrative appeal; Construction companies; |
中文摘要 | 本文主要討論四則最高行政法院之裁判,此四則裁判為近兩年來最高行政法院就公平法第二十一條規定之適用,撤銷公平會之認定或表示與公平會不同之見解。在橋木建設公司一案之中,法院明確表示公平會所為不構成不實廣告之函覆屬行政處分,得為行政訴訟之客體,雖然就此在學說上尚非全無爭議,唯多數觀點或公平會實務,亦均肯定檢舉人得依行政救濟程序提出救濟。就第二十一條之適用範圍而言,在保你家公司案以及振榮公司案中,最高行政法院均表示,構成虛偽不實或引人錯誤廣告之標的,須與第二十一條規定中所例示之與商品本身性質有關者,始足當之,事業所為如係與商品本身性質無直接關連之不實表示,則尚有第二十四條可資補充規範,本文以為從公平法之體系解釋,及公平法所具有之行政制裁性格而言,本條之適用範圍確不宜做過度擴張解釋。再者,引人錯誤表徵並不以消費者實際發生損害為必要,故最高行政法院於僑木建設一案所表示之見解,似已變更其早期於鶴翔建設公司不實廣告一案之見解,而認為是否違反第二十一條之認定,與消費者權益是否受到重大損害或是事後獲得填補無關。 |
英文摘要 | In this article the author discusses mainly four judgments rendered by the Administrative Supreme Court in recent two years reversing the decisions of the Fair Trade Commission (FTC) regarding § 21 of the Fair Trade Law. In the case of Chau Mu Construction Company, the Supreme Court indicates that FTC’s unfavorable answer to a complainant shall be deemed as an administrative act so that the complainant could appeal the case to the court. Although such an opinion has not been conclusive in theory, the theoretical majority and the practice of FTC agree complainants shall have the right to appeal. In the case of Bau Ni Gia Company and Jun Lung Company, the Supreme Court states that an untrue or misleading advertising in violation of § 21 must have something to do with the commodity itself as mentioned in § 21. If an untrue or misleading advertising has no direct relation to the commodity, the court will apply § 24 instead of § 21. From the systematic explanation and the penalty nature of Fair Trade Law, the author concludes that the scope of § 21 should not be over-expended. Furthermore, there is no need to look for consumer’s actual damage in applying § 21 for a misleading advertising case. In the case of Cha Mu Construction Company, the Supreme Court seems to change its earlier opinion in the case of Ho Shan construcition Company, which considers consumer’s damage and the compensation they later received in determining whether the advertising violates § 21. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。