關 鍵 詞: |
熱紅茶案;消保法第七條;商品責任;服務責任;警告責任 |
中文摘要: |
餐飲業屬服務業,其所提供予消費者乃商品與服務之混合服務,若經營餐飲之企業經營者提供瑕疵服務或商品,致消費者有損害,依消保法第七條規定,應負商品責任、服務責任以及警告責任。惟於相關責任構成要件之適用,於實務個案尚有檢視之必要,故本文研究熱紅茶案三級審法院適用餐飲業之消保法商品及服務責任相關規範之疑義,希冀對未來實務上處理相關案件有些許助益。
|
英文關鍵詞: |
The Hot Black Tea Case;Article 7 of Taiwan Consumer Protection Act;Product Liability;Service Liability;Warning Liability |
英文摘要: |
Food and drink providers are service providers who are subject to product, service and warning liability under Article 7 of Taiwan Consumer Protection Act. However, courts have not always clearly articulated the application of Article 7 to products and services rendered by food and drink providers in specific cases. Therefore, this Comment examines the judgments of the Hot Black Tea case rendered by the courts to attempt to offer a few thoughts and suggestions that can be used by courts to analyze cases in the future on food and drink providers' product, service and warning liability under Article 7 of Taiwan Consumer Protection Act.
|
目 次: |
壹、前言 貳、熱紅茶案之相關事實與判決 一、案例事實 二、法院之相關判決 (一)臺灣臺北地方法院之判決 (二)臺灣高等法院及最高法院之判決 參、餐飲業就所提供商品或服務之責任 肆、熱紅茶案之評析 一、被告餐飲業者是否有服務責任之成立 二、被告餐飲業者之商品責任是否成立 (一)系爭「熱」紅茶是否有瑕疵 (二)瑕疵與損害間因果關係之舉證責任歸屬 三、被告餐飲業者之警告責任是否成立 伍、結論
|
相關法條: |
 |
相關判解: |
 |
相關函釋: |
 |
相關論著: |
 |