本章的目的是探討我國立法中懸賞廣告的法律性質，並認為在懸賞廣告問題上應採取更加規範的立場。在中國的立法中，目前的立場是，賞金廣告既可以被接受為要約接受式合同，也可以被接受為單方合同，就像英國和德國的立法一樣。報價時的意圖在這裡是很重要的。在中國人看來，意圖的表現(當懸賞廣告由要約人放置時的意圖)變得很重要。當獎賞被宣佈時，什麼構成這個意圖變得重要。本篇代寫論文 價格文章由英國論文時Essay Times教育網整理，供大家參考閱讀。
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the legal nature of the advertisement for reward in Chinese legislation and argue for the need to adopt a more standardized stance when it comes to advertisements for reward. In Chinese legislation the current position is that an advertisement for a reward is accepted both in the offer-acceptance contract style and also as a unilateral contract style as in the case of UK and German legislations. The intent when the offer is made is given much importance here. Under the Chinese perspective, the manifestation of intent (intent when an advertisement for reward is placed by the offeror) becomes important. What constitutes this intent when the reward is announced becomes important.
The Advertisement law of the People’s Republic of China PRC 1994 (Article 2 of the Law) defines an advertisement as something where a commodity producer or a service provider will pay in order to ensure that their product is sold. To pay herein is an intent However, the advertisement for a reward will not be a commercial one. So the intent becomes much more difficult to classify. There are two group arguments posted on what the nature of an advertisement for reward under Chinese law could be and the debate in scholarly literature lends significance to the analysis of the ‘rewards’ topic in Chinese law. Section 4.2. discusses the elements of offer-acceptance present in the advertisement for rewards approach of Chinese legislation, however the unilateral doctrine is also accepted as in the case of properties and section 4.3. discusses this stance in Chinese legislation.
Consider the case of Li Min v. Zhu Jinhua and Li Shao Hua, Tian Jin Intermediate People’s Court, 1984, reported in the Gazette of the Supreme People’s Court. Here the manifestation of intent indicated that the offeror did not offer the reward with the intention to pay, however the message was so construed that anybody reading it could reasonably believe that the offeror would pay. The court hence supported the offeree when they raised appeal for the reward to be paid out to them. However, the manifestation of intent was to be analyzed when considering the reward payment.