消保法施行（民國83年1月13日）迄今，已逾20年。法院裁判實務上，消保法規定最常見之爭議，乃定型化契約。 本文以最高法院及臺灣高等法院確定裁判為基礎，從定型化契約條款成為契約內容、條款之解釋、條款效力之管制、條款無效之法律效果、定型化契約範本等觀點，探討消保法定型化契約之理論與實務發展。定型化契約條款效力之管制，尤為論述重點。就此，本文闡述並評析預售屋買賣、房地買賣仲介、買賣價金履約保證、最高限額抵押、信用卡、委託買賣股票、地下停車場停車等契約，經最高法院及臺灣高等法院裁判認定為有效或無效之定型化條款。本文認為，企業經營者使用之定型化契約條款，如有「概括免責條款」、「自我矛盾條款」、或「不合理之風險分配或轉嫁條款」情形者，尤其應依消保法第12條及消保法施行細則第13條、第14條規定，認定其違反誠實信用原則或平等互惠原則，而為無效之條款。

Since the implementation of the Consumer Protection Law (CPL) on January 13, 1994, more than 20 years have been passed. The most commonly litigating disputes related to the provisions of the CPL are those arising out of standard form contracts. Based on the decisions of the Taiwan Supreme Court and the final decisions of the Taiwan High Court, this paper explores the developments of the theories and practices of standard form contracts from the angles of incorporation of standard clauses into contract, interpretation of standard clauses, control over of the validity of standard clauses, effect of invalid standard clauses, and model standard clauses. In particular, problems associated with the validity of standard clauses are core of the explorations. In this regard, after reviewing courts’ decisions relating to the transactions of pre-sold houses, sale brokerage of real estates, performance guarantee for sale prices, maximum amount mortgage, credit card, mandate of sale and purchase of stocks, underground parking, this paper scrutinises the validity and invalidity of the standard form clauses involved in these transactions. The review and scrutiny aims to expound the author’s opinion that the entirely exempting clauses, self-contradictory clauses, unreasonable risk allocation or transfer clauses contained in the standard form contracts used by the business enterprises shall be considered as invalid due to violation of the principles of good faith andreciprocity prescribed by Art. 12 CPL, and Art. 13 and 14 of the Enforcement Rules of CPL.