臺灣大學: 國家發展研究所陳顯武楊絮雲Yang, Hsu-YunHsu-YunYang2013-03-292018-06-282013-03-292018-06-282010http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw//handle/246246/254289我國消保法並未對於「消費」、「服務」予以定義，致法院於民事訴訟上，常遭遇原告主張之消費服務行為，是否屬於消保法所規範之「服務」範疇？而原告是否係以消費為目的而接受服務之人？抑或是第三人？該服務是否不具可合理期待之安全性，致生損害於原告？另隨著社會之快速轉動，企業經營者提供服務之項目琳瑯滿目，千變萬化，企業經營者所負無過失責任之時點，究竟應始於何時？於法院審判實務上，亦迭生爭議。本論文即針對前開消費服務爭議之民事判決予以歸納、評析，並提出筆者意見，擬供日後審判實務上就相同或類似案件之參考。Consumer Protection Law is not for the "consumer", "service" be defined, addressed the court in civil proceedings on the claim of the plaintiff often encounter consumer service behavior, whether it is regulated by the Consumer Protection Law "service" category? And whether the Department of plaintiff for the purpose of consumption the person receiving services? Or is the third person? Whether the service does not have the security can reasonably be expected, resulting in damage to the plaintiff? With the rapid rotation of the other community, business services programs provide dazzling, ever-changing business operators in the point of negative liability without fault, what should be hatched? Practice in the courts, also slowed by controversy. This thesis presents the dispute before the opening of consumer services to be summarized in civil judgments, assessment, and put forward the views of the author, to be practical for future trials of cases on the same or similar reference.1749911 bytesapplication/pdfen-US消保法服務消費者企業經營者第三人可合理期待之安全醫療行為Consumer Protection Lawthe serviceconsumersbusiness operatorsthe third personSafety can be reasonably expectedmedical carethesishttp://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw/bitstream/246246/254289/1/ntu-99-P91341010-1.pdf