论文部分内容阅读
工程合同是民事合同法中具有特殊性的合同类型,这是因为工程合同中往往夹杂大量技术性及专业性条款。因此,就工程合同纠纷而言,仲裁制度较于传统诉讼更能解决当事人的纠纷。然而在我国台湾地区“台北市政府捷运局与法商马特拉公司就捷运木栅线工程CC-350合同争议”案中,由于法律规范的交错适用而导致仲裁制度与消灭时效制度产生了冲突。本案触及到我国台湾地区《民法》中的消灭时效制度、工程合同中请求权之时效期间以及仲裁制度等基础概念,引起了广泛关注。本文以此案为基础,对我国台湾地区立法中的消灭时效制度与仲裁制度的冲突展开研究,指出了相关立法的不足,并提出了改进的建议。
Engineering contract is a type of contract with special characteristics in civil contract law, because engineering contracts often contain a large number of technical and professional provisions. Therefore, as far as the construction contract disputes are concerned, the arbitration system can resolve the parties' disputes better than the traditional litigation. However, in Taiwan of our country, in the case of the “CC-350 Contract Dispute over the Mucha Line Project of MRT” in the Taipei Municipal Government and the Matra Company of Fama, the arbitration system and eradicating time-limitation The system created a conflict. This case has touched the basic concepts such as the system of eliminating the limitation of time in the “Civil Law” of Taiwan in our country, the limitation period of the right of claim in the project contract, and the arbitration system, which aroused widespread concern. Based on this case, this article studies the conflict between the time-extinctive prescription and the arbitration system in Taiwan's legislation in our country, points out the shortcomings of related legislation and puts forward suggestions for improvement.