我國向來之學說與實務見解，對於我國民法第88條規定之解釋適用，均先區辨當事人對事實之誤判，是發生在動機或表示，若為動機之錯誤，始判斷是否屬於人或物之性質之錯誤，以為適用民法第88條之前提作業。這樣的方法，原本是為了交易安全之目的，且僅以表意人片面之心理階段為基準，在分類上遭遇困難，蓋吾人發現，若考量到契約當事人交涉之各種情況，上開分類實際上界線不明。這種在一開始要求法院篩選錯誤類型之方法，使得以進入民法第88條適用範圍之入口過窄，有過於保護相對人之嫌。而同條文於撤銷權要件之設定上，僅以交易上重要性及表意人無過失為要件（表意人之過失要件當另文檢討之），未明文要求考慮雙方當事人於契約形成過程中之交涉經過（不應僅止於表意人之心理狀態，尚應包括相對人之認識與行為），尚不能適當衡量撤銷權之行使於當事人間之公平性問題，亦未完全合乎日常交易常情之需要。

The legal academy and practice has long hold the position that it should first be distinguished whether the mistake regarding facts and law lies in the motive or declaration of the declarant, and whether such a mistake, if lies in declarant's motive, is a mistake in substantia before applying §88 of our civil code. Such a method, originally for the sake of the certainty of daily transactions and having its eyes on declarant's psychological process only, has encountered a difficulty in categorization, because one would find no absolute line between motive and declaration when taking all the matters in the parties' communication into account. Such a method requiring the court to classify the mistake, has made the relevant mistake of §88 too narrow and favored the opposing party too much. Also, §88, setting the requirements of the right of rescind on the significance in transaction and the non-excusability of the declarant only, in lacking of the proclamation of considering the parties' matters in their communication during the formation of the contract, can neither properly weigh the fairness of exercising the right of rescind, nor fully meet the needs of the daily transactions.