在出賣人為個人的場合，最高法院樹立了一項資訊提供義務之基本原則：當事人之一方，應就其所知，告知他方交易上重要事項。於此情形，主張民法第92條第1項成立緘默詐欺者，應證明債務人明知該交易上重要事項卻未告知、且債務人認識到債權人因其緘默行為而繼續陷於錯誤、以致訂約之事實。若出賣人為企業經營者，最高法院除認為其應就明知之交易上重大資訊，對相對人負說明義務外，近來還有直接認定企業經營者明知或應知悉交易上之重要事項，故就此對相對人負有告知義務者，誠值重視。於此情形，援引緘默詐欺主張權利之消費者，無庸舉證債務人明知或應知悉該事項之事實，僅須釋明債務人所未告知者乃交易上重大事項、且其可合理預見消費者因其緘默致陷錯誤而訂約的事實。此際，欲排除成立緘默詐欺之企業經營者，應證明系爭資訊非屬交易上之重要事項、或提出已告知相關資訊之事證、或舉證其未能預見消費者因其緘默致陷錯誤而締約之事實。

The purpose of this article, which is divided into three parts, is to analyze the problem of fraudulent non-disclosure of information by the vendor. Following the introduction, Part II examines the position of obligation of information established by Taiwan Supreme Court, who makes a distinction between the Professional-Consumer relation and the Non Professional-Consumer relation. This distinction for the obligation of information comes from the jurisprudence of Article 567 of Taiwan civil code, which is concretization of the principle of good faith and fair dealing. Part III concludes by offering a proposition to the concept of fraudulent non-disclosure of information in Taiwan.