English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 88613/118155 (75%)
Visitors : 23481268      Online Users : 219
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 法學院 > 法律學系 > 期刊論文 >  Item 140.119/115882
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/115882


    Title: The Present and Future of the Insurance Contract Consumer’s Right of Information
    保險消費者資訊權保障之現在與未來
    Authors: 葉啟洲
    Yeh, Chi-Chou
    Contributors: 法學院
    Keywords: 資訊義務;審閱期間;保險消費者;契約撤銷權
    Information Duty;Reviewing Period;Consumer of Insurance Contract;Right to Revoke the Contract
    Date: 2017-03
    Issue Date: 2018-02-07 14:19:09 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 保險消費者在訂立保險契約之前,應有充分機會瞭解契約內容,以便判斷是否符合其需求,進而決定是否購買該保險商品。現行規範中用以保障保險消費者訂約前資訊權的制度,有消費者保護法的定型化審閱期、金融消費者保護法的金融業資訊說明義務,以及人壽保險示範條款的無條件契約撤銷權。此等規範之間的關係如何?各該規範適用結果對於要保人、被保險人與危險共同體之影響為何?彼此間為併行適用,或者具有特別法或普通法之關係?現行法如何解釋,以及將來應如何發展?均屬重要問題,有研究必要。本文認為消費者保護法第十一條之一第三項「條款不構成契約內容」此一法律效果對於保險制度將產生不良影響,應將金融消費者保護法第十一條解為該條的特別規定,或予以限縮解釋,使之不包括涉及保險契約對價關係的條款,較為允當。
    When entering into an insurance contract, consumers should have adequate opportunity to understand the content in order to determine its value and whether to purchase or not. Existing mechanisms aiming at protecting consumers’ right of information include the reviewing period in the Consumer Protection Act, information explanation duty in the Financial Consumer Protection Act, and the unconditional right to revoke the contract in standard provision of life insurance. The following questions are all worth discussing: What are the relationships among these regimes? How will they affect the stakeholders? How to apply these regulations? How to comprehend existing regulations and future developments? This article argues the legal effect in Paragraph 3, Article 11-1 in the Consumer Protection Act will cause undesirable consequence to the detriment of current insurance system, therefore, we should either consider the Article 11 in the Financial Consumer Protection Act as a special regulation, or exclude clauses regarding consideration from the application.
    Relation: 月旦法學雜誌, No.263, pp.56-77
    Data Type: article
    DOI 連結: http://dx.doi.org/10.3966/102559312017040263004
    DOI: 10.3966/102559312017040263004
    Appears in Collections:[法律學系] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML277View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback