民法和消保法就商品責任交錯規範，姑且不論規範上是否周延，因爲 法條文義不盡相同，就存在相當大的解釋空間；另外，學者間的闡述，見 解也未必一致；再者，實務也有其見解，因而形成相當複雜的解釋適用現象。況且，法條並未定義商品，也未就消滅時效爲規定，因此，在個案的法律解釋適用上，就困擾著當事人與執法者。
本文認爲就現行法的規範，民法和消保法規定不同，對商品責任也無定義，有必要統一相關條文規定，並明訂商品責任的範圍，並明訂經銷人與製造人等連帶負無過失責任，以符合消費者保護的意旨，並杜絕爭議。 現行法也未針對商品責任特別規定時效，如適用民法第197條2年和10 年的規定，時間又顯得太短，未必適合於商品責任，尤其是累積性損害。商品致消費者損害，有時必須長期間才能發現，故針對商品責任應就時效 另爲規定，對消費者保障較爲有利。

Article 191-1, of the Civil Code-Obligations stipulates “Products Liability.” Article 7, 8, 9 of Consumer Protection Act also stipulates “Products Liability.” Due to the different words of the articles of the two Acts, there are broad range of interpretation. There are different opinions among scholars. The courts also have their own opinions by decisions. It forms a relatively complicated phenomenon of interpretation. Moreover, there is no definition about products in these articles and statute of limitations. For this reason, it troubles the parties and law enforcers concerning the application of the law to certain cases.
To erase the controversy and protect the consumers, this article proposes to unify concerning articles of the two Acts, to stipulate clearly the scope of products liability and to provide joint strict liability for distributors and producers. The current articles do not specifically provide the statute of limitations of product liability. It is not appropriate to apply article 197 of Civil Code which provides 2 years and 10 years of the statute of limitation. It is too short for consumers to sue for damages of cumulative injuries of products. It is necessary to provide a specific article to stipulate the statute of limitations of product liability.