[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":55},["ShallowReactive",2],{"q-house-106-1-brokerage-law-030":3},{"subject":4,"subjectSlug":5,"subjectKicker":6,"subjectShort":7,"subjectMcqNote":8,"question":9,"related":25,"sameNumber":50,"hasEssay":24},"不動產經紀相關法規概要","brokerage-law","經紀相關法規 · Brokerage Regulation","經紀相關法規","105–106 年 40 題(每題 1.25 分)、107 年起 25 題(每題 2 分)",{"id":10,"webId":11,"year":12,"session":13,"subject":4,"number":14,"stem":15,"options":16,"answer":21,"answerNote":22,"lawYear":12,"explanation":23,"freq":13,"indexable":24},"house-106-1-不動產經紀相關法規概要-030","house-106-1-brokerage-law-030",106,1,30,"依消費者保護法規定，關於定型化契約之審閱期間，下列敘述何者錯誤？",{"A":17,"B":18,"C":19,"D":20},"應有 30 日以內之合理審閱期間","企業經營者以定型化契約條款使消費者拋棄合理審閱期權利者，無效","違反合理審閱期規定者，該條款無效","中央主管機關得選擇特定行業，參酌定型化契約條款之重要性等事項，公告定型化契約之審閱期間","C",null,"本題考點：《消費者保護法》第 11-1 條定型化契約審閱期間的四項規定，重點在違反時的法律效果是什麼。\n【正解理由】依《消費者保護法》第 11-1 條第三項，「違反第一項規定者，其條款不構成契約之內容。但消費者得主張該條款仍構成契約之內容」；效果是不構成契約之內容，而且但書把主張權留給消費者，並不是一律無效，本選項寫成該條款無效，與條文不符，故選 C。\n【逐項排除】\n(A) 敘述正確。《消費者保護法》第 11-1 條第一項規定，企業經營者與消費者訂立定型化契約前，應有三十日以內之合理期間，供消費者審閱全部條款內容。\n(B) 敘述正確。《消費者保護法》第 11-1 條第二項規定，企業經營者以定型化契約條款使消費者拋棄前項權利者，無效。\n(C) 敘述錯誤。未給合理審閱期的效果是條款不構成契約之內容，且消費者仍得主張該條款構成契約內容，與「無效」不同。\n(D) 敘述正確。《消費者保護法》第 11-1 條第四項規定，中央主管機關得選擇特定行業，參酌定型化契約條款之重要性、涉及事項之多寡及複雜程度等事項，公告定型化契約之審閱期間。\n【記憶點】審閱期沒給，條款是「不構成契約內容」而不是「無效」，要不要用這個條款的開關握在消費者手上。",true,[26,30,34,38,42,46],{"webId":27,"stem":28,"number":29,"year":12,"session":13},"house-106-1-brokerage-law-029","依消費者保護法規定，企業經營者對消費者保證商品或服務品質所出具之書面保證書，應載明事項不包括下列何者？",29,{"webId":31,"stem":32,"number":33,"year":12,"session":13},"house-106-1-brokerage-law-031","依消費者保護法規定，關於特種交易之敘述何者正確？",31,{"webId":35,"stem":36,"number":37,"year":12,"session":13},"house-106-1-brokerage-law-027","下列何者非屬於內政部依消費者保護法之規定所訂定之定型化契約應記載不得記載事項類型？",27,{"webId":39,"stem":40,"number":41,"year":12,"session":13},"house-106-1-brokerage-law-032","定型化契約中之定型化契約條款牴觸個別磋商條款之約定者，其牴觸部分？",32,{"webId":43,"stem":44,"number":45,"year":12,"session":13},"house-106-1-brokerage-law-026","下列何者不是消費者保護法第 12 條所規定推定定型化契約條款顯失公平之情形？",26,{"webId":47,"stem":48,"number":49,"year":12,"session":13},"house-106-1-brokerage-law-033","公寓大廈共用部分不得獨立使用供作專有部分，其為下列何者非不得為約定專用部分？",33,[51],{"webId":52,"year":53,"stem":54,"number":14},"house-105-1-brokerage-law-030",105,"甲於乙商店購得丙手機公司所生產之新型手機，甲交予其子丁使用，詎料丁於使用時竟發生手機電池燃燒，致丁受傷送醫。依消費者保護法規定，關於本案中企業經營者責任之敘述，下列何者錯誤？",1786689136002]