| Summary: | 碩士 === 世新大學 === 法律學研究所(含碩專班) === 106 === Due to the complexity and high-risk of financial derivatives, many disputes happened to be caused by misinterpret and misconduct. So first, we need to understand what financial derivatives are, and have a real discuss into the concept of TRF and DKO. Most of the controversy happened, mainly led by the lack of Duty of disclosure and and The Principle of Suitability when the bank’s recommended purchase happened. So the further study of regulations of bank sells financial derivatives methods about Duty of disclosure and the principle of suitability is also important. When financial disputes occurred, financial service industry should have the chance to remedy or processing the dispute. What we need to do here is to follow the rules that guide investors to raise an appeal to the financial service industry. If investors were not satisfied by the result of their appeals, they should turn to the Financial ombudsman Institution to apply for a arbitration or the entry of judicial procedure. To further understand the rule dealing with the financial disputes, this paper aims at the research of trading behaviors of bank sells financial derivatives and the treatment mechanism to investors’ disputes. To increase the acknowledgement about TRF and DKO cases, we will have a comprehensive comparison about the financial Consumer Dispute Resolution system between the Taiwanese law and the British law or the others.
Financial service industry is providing highly complex financial derivatives or services, so plenty of duty of disclosures should be fully informed. Nevertheless, due to the information asymmetry, investors suffers during the transaction when the lack of risk assessment and valuation for the financial products or services. Therefore, in order to protect investors’ interests, Duty of disclosure should be cautiously exercised when the transaction take place. Besides, investors don’t have professional training and knowledge of financial products, it’s important to inform them the Duty of Disclosure in every transaction. If financial operators breach the Duty of Disclosure on purpose when the purchase occurred, either aggressively fabricate the facts or negatively hide the truth, or simply fail to disclose or sending out the wrong information to make the damage happen, in order to protect the clients’ interests, the financial operators would forcedly take the responsibility of civil liability for breach of contracts by the Civil law. Also in Taiwanese civil law system, especially the special rule of Civil Law’s Theory and relevance has already connected to the core of Debt law, so we will do the relevant research with other country’s legal principle and practice about “duty of disclosure and the principle of suitability” as well.
|
|---|
