基於私法自治原則，民法立法者僅在極端情況下始介入私法關係，「有效但得撤銷」與無效即是兩種介入方式。第九十二條與第九十三條對於因被詐欺或被脅迫而為之意思表示所作的規範屬於前者。對於習於法教義學思維的我國學者來說，相關條文都繼受自德國，其正確性不言可喻。儘管如此，本文仍嘗試提出一個「異端邪說」，論證此二規定在實際上造成不利於被詐欺人與被脅迫人的「有效且不得撤銷」結果。對於他們來說，必須於除斥期間之內行使撤銷權以及在訴訟上盡舉證責任等都是難度極高的障礙。如此一來，加害人反而可以保有不法獲利。為強調觀點之不同足以得出迥異之結論，本文特別提出法社會學（包括荷爾姆斯所代表的美國法律現實主義）與法律受規人（其中的被害人與非法律人）的觀點。筆者以身為連動債被害人的訴訟經驗印證現行法的問題重重，並主張通往解決之道的第一步應是刪除此二規定而代以第七十二條，蓋詐欺與脅迫均違反公序良俗也。

Private autonomy is the foundation of modern civil law. Juridical acts which include contracts will thus be deemed as illegal only in ex-ceptional cases. They can be either void or revoked, while the former solution is the strongest form of legislative disapproval. As regards the latter one, §§ 92 and 93 of the Taiwanese Civil Code offer an explicit example. Ever since the reception of the Continental model (especially the German one) in the early 20th Century by the Republic of China, these two paragraphs remain intact and stipulate that a juridical act can be revoked by the party whose decision is influenced by fraud or duress within one year. It is and will stay valid as long as the right of revoca-tion is not exercised within one year from the date the fraud was dis-covered or when the duress ceased. Such regulations mean to protect the victim, but in reality they often benefit the offender instead, for the former has little knowledge about the law concerned and might thus miss the specified period to enact his or her right. It could be argued that the mentioned articles are indeed a poisoned apple for victims seeking justice. Through legal sociological perspectives including American Legal Realism and the views of non-jurists subjected to the law, this research maintains that § 72 rather than §§ 92 and 93 provides the best solution for the party who falls victim to fraud or duress. This study proposes that a juridical act is void for being against public policy or morals. Its legal effect must coincide with the regulatory need of the juridical acts procured by fraud or duress. Through abolishing §§ 92 and 93 and applying § 72 instead, justice could be better served since the act concerned is per se void and victims do not need to revoke the act.