2013 及2014 行政契約案例數量雖有略減，仍然值得參考研究，只是結果 值得再檢視。例如，在當事人提出之承諾書（或切結書），有時看作要約（102 年判字第243 號），有時認為是準負擔附款（103 年判字第167 號）。再如行 政契約與行政處分同時存在的情況下，有些可以認為是「並立」（真正併存） ，有些則屬「不當併存」，前者如102 年判字第80 號，後者如102 年裁字第 1926 號、102 年判字第184 號。尤其在不當併存情況，若是行政契約可以解 決相關爭議，似無必要再以行政處分介入。另外，在立法上直接認定當事人間 之契約為行政契約，可視為「法定行政契約」值得稱讚。最後，103 年裁字第 790 號承認隸屬同一公法人之行政機關間可以成立行政契約，這一結果非常不 妥當。此問題可參照行政程序法第19條「行政機關相互協助」方式解決。

Although the case quantity of 2013 and 2014 concerning administrative contracts slightly decreases, they are still worth studying, except that those case decisions are in in need of reviewag ain. For example, the commitment (or affidavit) that the parties proposed, they are sometimes regarded as offers (ruling 243 in 2013), sometimes considered a quasi-burden riders (ruling 167 in 2014). Another example is the case of an administrative contract and administrative sanctions coexist, and some can be considered as "side by side" (really coexisting), while others belong to "improper co-existence", for example, the former as ruling 80 in 2013, the latter as the ruling 1926 in 2013, as well as the ruling 184 in 2013. Especially in the case of improper co-existence, if the administrative contract can solve relevant disputes, it seems unnecessary to intervene again the administrative sanctions. In addition, administrative contracts directly identified in the legislation of contract between the parties can be viewed as "statutory administrative contract" that is worthy of praise. Finally, the ruling 790 In 2014 admitting the institutions under the same administrative authority can form an administration contract whose decision is very inappropriate. Nevertheless, this problem can be solved by referring to "the executive mutual assistance" under the Article 19 of Administrative Procedure Act.