本研究以臺北自來水事業處為研究標的，針對違約金制度設計之有效性進行實證研究，並嘗試瞭解違約金制度對顧客行為之改變及其影響程度。研究後，本文結論如下：
一、 多數用戶認同自來水處逾繳水費收取違約金之制度，且不同意取消該制度，而將催繳成本反應至水價。
二、 用戶對於自來水處收取水費逾期違約金之懲罰行為，將直接影響顧客對自來水處之滿意度，而不論客服人員本身的表現。
三、 違約金比率之高或低，並不會造成自來水處用戶未來逾繳水費行為之增減或是影響其對自來水處的滿意度。
四、 違約懲罰事件之處理有彈性，且客服人員能有適當解釋，將可降低用戶未來逾繳水費之行為，並可提升用戶滿意度。
　　本文另提出之建議如下：
一、 自來水處逾繳水費收取違約金之制度，應經由訊息的發佈使用戶產生社會學習效果。
二、 逾期違約金的收取應採彈性措施，並充分授權予第一線客服人員，主動釋放彈性處理之訊息；此外，尚需注意程序公平及互動公平，以提升用戶滿意度。
三、 應嘗試依用戶個人特徵加以分類，瞭解其行為模式，發展顧客關係管理系統，提供客服人員以適當之方式應對，進而改善顧客關係。

This research is an empirical research of the effectiveness of design of Default Payment System basis the situation and data of Taipei Water Department, and it tried to find out the change in customer behavior and the intensity of effect as result of Default Payment System. The conclusions of the research are listed below:
I. Most customers approve the default payment system of Taipei Water Department for overdue water bill, and they do not agree to remove the system and transfer the collection cost to water rate.
II. The punitive act of default payment on overdue water bill will affect customers’ satisfaction toward Taipei Water Department directly, regardless how the customer service department performs.
III. The rate of default payment, high or low, will not increase or decrease the overdue bill of customers of Taipei Water Department, and it will not affect customers’ satisfaction over the services of Taipei Water Department.
IV. Providing flexibility for overdue punishment plus proper explanation of customer service department t will cut down the overdue of customer and promote customers satisfaction.
We also put up the following suggestions:
I. The Overdue Bill Default Payment System of Taipei Water Department shall be released publicly through multiple channels to create a social learning effects to customers.
II. The levy of Overdue Default Payment shall be provided with flexibility and the front line customer service personnel shall be authorized sufficiently and shall actively release message of flexible handling. Also, Procedure Fairness and Interactive Fairness shall be attended to promote customer satisfaction.
III. It shall be tried to categorized customers with personal traits, find out individual behavior mode and develop Customer Relationship Management System, so to provide customer service personnel with proper way to interact and hope for improvement in customer relationship.

【中文部分】
1. 楊振銘(1985)，民法概論
2. 陳允、應時(1994)，羅馬法，第290頁
3. 葉銘功(1994)，違約金之研究，第3-10頁
4. 林忠義(1996)，違約金分類標準之建立暨現行法違約金相關問題之省思，月旦法學，第17期，第106頁
5. 謝定亞、楊蔚(1997)，由法學觀點分析我國公共建築工程契約之法律問題，中國土木水利工程學刊，第9卷第4期，第713-714頁
6. 王澤鑑(1997)，民法債編總論，第一冊，第78頁
7. 張中秋(2002)，唐代經濟民事法律述論
8. 施錦村(2005)，公平知覺與顧客忠誠之關聯--以連鎖餐飲業為例，國立台北大學管理學系博士論文
9. 余文恭(2006)，論工程契約之性質及其義務，月旦法學，第129期，第22-23頁
10. 劉新隆(2006)，探討知覺正義下顧客服務補救期望之前導因素--以台鐵網路訂票為例，國立交通大學運輸科技與管理學系碩士論文
11. 洪佳如(2007)，論公共工程採購契約之違約金條款，國立成功大學法律研究所碩士論文
12. 邱婕如(2007)，旁觀消費者對「服務提供者懲罰違規消費者」之資訊的反應，國立中山大學企業管理研究所碩士論文
13. 黃俊源、郭照榮、江彌修(2008)，違約的代價－契約違約金存在之合理性，公平交易季刊，第16卷第1期，第35-55頁

【英文部分】
1. Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 67 , pp. 422-436
2. Bies, R. J. and Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice : Communication criteria of fairness. Research on Negotiation in Organizations, Vol. 1, pp. 43-55
3. Christovich, M.M. and T.J.R. Stadnik, (2000). COMMENT: Judicial Modification of Penal Clause--A Survey of Recent Developments, pp. 545-546
4. Eagly, C. (1993). The Nature of Attitude: The Psychology of Attitude, Chapter 1
5. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, (1975). An Introduction to theory and Research: Beliefs, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior
6. Fram, E.H. and Callahan, A. (2001). Do you know what the customer you penalized yesterday is doing today? A pilot analysis. Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15 , pp. 496-509
7. Fram, E.H. and McCarthy, M.S. (1999). The true price of penalties. Marketing Management, Vol.8, pp. 49-56
8. Fram, E.H. (1997). The customer penalty box. Marketing Management, Vol.6 pp. 60-63
9. Gneezy, U. and Rustichini, A. (2000). A fine is a price. Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 29 , pp. 1-17
10. Goodwin, C. and I. Ross. (1992). Consumer Respones to Service Failure : Influence of Procedural and Interactional Fairness Perceptions. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 25 , pp. 149-163
11. Homans, G. C. (1961). Social Behavior : Its Elementary FormsNew York: Hartcourt, Brace & World
12. Huppertz, J. W., S. J. Arenson and R. H. Evans. (1978). An Application of Equity Teory to Buyer-Seller Exchange Situation. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 15, pp. 250-260
13. Kim, Y., "Sally" K. and Smith, A.K. (2005). Crime and punichment : Examining customers' responses to service orangizations' penalties. Journal of Services Research, Vol. 8 , pp. 162-180
14. Kim, Y., "Sally" K. (2006). How attribution explains consumers' views of penailties. The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, Vol. 8, pp. 311-315
15. McCarthy, M.S. and Fram, E.H. (2000). An exploratory investigattion of customer penalties: Assessment of efficacy, consequences, and faimess perceptions. Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14 , pp. 479-501
16. Olazabal, A.M. (2001). Formal and Operative Rules in Overliquidation Per Se Cases. pp. 510-514
17. Oliver, R. L. (1980). Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, pp. 460-469
18. Skinner, B.F. (1971). Beyond freedom & dignityHackett Publishing Company. Inc..
19. Trevino, L. K. (1992). The social effects of punishment in organizations: a justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17 , pp. 647-677
20. Trevino, L. K. and Ball, G. A. (1992). The social implications of punishing unethical behaviors' cogitive and affective reactions. Journal of Management, Vol. 18 , pp. 751-768
21. Tyler, T. R. and Bies, R. J. (1990) Beyond formal procedures : The interpersonal context of procedural justice. In J. S. Carroll(Ed.), Applied social psychology in business settings.