:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:公平交易法與消費者保護法之比較研究
書刊名:人文及社會科學集刊
作者:劉孔中 引用關係
出版日期:1995
卷期:7:2
頁次:頁1-19
主題關鍵詞:公平交易法消費者保護法
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(9) 博士論文(2) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:8
  • 共同引用共同引用:8
  • 點閱點閱:63
     公平交易法與消費者保護法是我國由管制經濟進步到市場經濟的二個劃時代的立 法,前者著重維護競爭秩序之自由及公平,後者則著重保護消費者。二者無論在立法目的、 規範對象、主管機關乃至彼此法條之解釋適用上,均有極密切的互動關係,本文之研究即以 橫向之綜合比較,指出其間之異同以及可以相互映照之處,希望有助於改善分別研究不足之 處。
     Two years after the enactment of the Fair Trade Law (FTL) the Consumer Protection Law (CPL) was adopted on Jan. 10, 1994. This paper compares the two laws with respect to their purposes, subject matters, administrative authorities, and mutual influences. It comes to the conclusions that: 1. FTL with its Fair Trade Commission (FTC) aims to protect the market competition and competitors in the first place, and only secondarily to ensure an environment that is beneficial to the consumers as a whole, while CPL pursues the direct protection of the comsumers. 2. FTL with its administrative instruments regulates transactions in the market place that are not to satisfy consumer needs only. On the contrary CPL regulates the transactions that are made by the consumers. 3. FTC is an independent legal person under public law with full authority to investigate and make administrative acts, while the Consumer Protection Commission (CPC) is only a cabinet internal consulting body, which can neither investigate nor make administrative acts. 4. According to § 24 FTL deceptive or obviously unfair acts are forbidden. Some regulations from the CPL can contribute to the finding of deception and unfairness, for example paragraphs 13, 18, 21, 24, 25 (deception), 12, 20 and 10 (unfainess). § 24 FTL in return helps to concretize some regulations of CPL, like § 4 and § 22.
期刊論文
1.廖義男(19890600)。消費者保護法之行政監督。國立臺灣大學法學論叢,18(2),85-117。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.劉紹樑(19940400)。法律移植與社會變遷--從消費者保護法談起。律師通訊,175,7-10。  延伸查詢new window
3.李聖隆(19940400)。醫療衛生事務與消費者保護法的關係。律師通訊,175,16-19。  延伸查詢new window
4.Gellhorn, E.(1983)。Trading Stamps, S & H, and the FTC's Unfairness Doctrine。Duke Law Journal,903-958。  new window
5.Craswell, R.(1981)。The Identification of Unfair Acts and Practices by the Federal Trade Commission。Wisconsin Law Review,107-153。  new window
6.林益山(19890400)。瑞典消費者保護法之研究。中興法學,28,169-180。new window  延伸查詢new window
7.林榮耀(19810900)。從憲法保障國民經濟之規定談公平交易法之制度。法學叢刊,26(3),84-93。new window  延伸查詢new window
會議論文
1.Bernitz, Ulf(1994)。Swedish Competition and Consumer Law。公平交易法國際學術研討會,(會議日期: 3月12-14日)。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.黃茂榮(1993)。公平交易法理論與實務。臺北:植根法學叢書編輯室。  延伸查詢new window
2.馮震宇、姜志俊、謝穎青、姜炳俊(1994)。消費者保護法解讀。臺北:月旦出版社。  延伸查詢new window
3.Baumbach, Adolf、Hefermehl, Wolfganer(1992)。UWG。München:C. H. Beck。  new window
4.Glassen, Helmut(1993)。Frankfurter Kommentar zura GWB。Köln:Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt。  new window
5.Immenga, Ulrich、Mestmaecker, Ernst-Joachim(1992)。GWB-Kommeniar。München:C. H. Beck。  new window
6.Mueller-Henneberg, Hans(1980)。Gemeinschaftskommentar zura GWB。Köln:Carl Heymanns Verlag。  new window
7.OECD(1993)。Consumer Policy in OECD Countries 1989-1990。Paris。  new window
圖書論文
1.廖義男(1994)。公平交易法之立法目的與保護之法益--第一條之詮釋。公平交易法之釋論與實務。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
2.廖義男(1994)。公平交易法規範之事業概念--第二條之詮釋。公平交易法論集--公平交易法之釋論與實務。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
3.Kur, Annette(1992)。Schutzzweck des UWG und Wettbewerbsrecht und Verbraucherschutz。Wettbewerbsrecht und Verbraucherschutz in Mittelund Osteuroya。Köln:Carl Heymanns Verlag。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE