本篇代写论文价格的文章是我们的一篇范文，主要是讲悬赏奖励案件的分析。
代写论文价格：悬赏奖励案件的分析
只有在英国的方法中考虑了合同因素后，才能执行奖励广告。以吉本斯诉普罗克特案为例。警察提供了悬赏的情报。然而，警官并不知道报酬。然而，有人认为，警官可以索取报酬。泰勒诉阿伦一案中提到了这个案子也是。全部承诺是不可执行的，只有要约人义务的单方面合同原则才能使其具有可执行性。这一直是英国立法的立场。即使是在像烟球公司和卡里尔夫人这样的情况下，对价的承诺也使这种情况成为一种合同。烟雾球公司只是没有被要求支付100英镑，因为他们作出了承诺。这一承诺导致了对价原则（这是合同的一个组成部分），正是由于这种情况，烟雾球公司必须支付。
代写论文价格：悬赏奖励案件的分析
因此，尽管像悬赏广告这样的单方合同被特别对待，但合同义务被分析为在英国法院被接受。这一直是英国法院的一个问题立场，因为大多数法院对待单方面承诺的方式与对待合同法律问题的方式大不相同。在英国站在合同立场的地方，德国更强调单边主义或单边承诺。德国《奖励广告法》（Auslobung）第657节BGB规定，“任何人通过公开宣布的方式，为实施一项行为（包括但不限于产生结果）提供奖励的，有义务向实施该行为的人支付奖励，即使该人的行为不是为了承诺报酬”，德国立法中的这一规定将报酬完全置于合同法之外。
代写论文价格：悬赏奖励案件的分析
它认为宣布奖励是一种独立的法律行为，其本身就产生了法律效力，即无论谁承担了必要的事情，都有权获得奖励。然而，德国法律在将奖励广告视为单方面承诺时也没有采取严格的做法。正如勒纳所说，“虽然在《德国法典》中，对公众的承诺确实被定性为单方面承诺，但对于普遍承认单方面承诺为义务来源，没有明确的立场”。鉴于这些对英国和德国立场的讨论，中国法律在涉及悬赏广告时存在的问题是，中国法律在解释上可能更为含糊不清。灵活运用立法和模棱两可听起来可能相似，但本质上是不同的。灵活意味着将考虑扩展到上下文。
代写论文价格：悬赏奖励案件的分析
An advertisement for reward can be enforced only after contractual elements are considered in the UK approach. Consider the case of Gibbons v. Proctor. The police officer gave information for which a reward had been offered. The police officer however was unaware of the reward. However, it was held that the police officer could claim the reward. The case has been cited in the case of Taylor v. Allon too.All promises are not enforceable and only the unilateral contractual doctrine of offeror obligation can make them enforceable. This has been the stand point in UK legislation. Even in such cases as the Smokeball company and Mrs Carill, the promise of consideration makes the situation a contract. The Smoke ball company merely was not asked to pay 100 pounds because they made a promise. The promise led to the doctrine of consideration (which is an element of the contract) and because of this situation the Smoke Ball company has to pay.
代写论文价格：悬赏奖励案件的分析
So although a unilateral contract as in the case of a reward advertisement is treated specially, the contractual obligations are analyzed for them to be accepted in the UK court. This has been a problem standpoint for the UK courts since most of the courts did treat the unilateral promise much more differently than the contract legal point. Where the UK takes the contract standpoint, Germany gives more emphasis for the unilateral doctrines or unilateral promise. The German law in the case of the advertisement for reward (Auslobung) Section 657 BGB states “Anyone offering by means of public announcement a reward for undertaking an act, including without limitation for producing an outcome, is obliged to pay the reward to the person who has undertaken the act, even if that person did not act with a view to the promise of a reward”.This provision in the German legislation places the reward outside the contract law altogether.
代写论文价格：悬赏奖励案件的分析
It regards the announcement of a reward as being an independent juridical act that out of itself creates the legal effect that whoever undertakes what is necessary is entitled to the reward. However German law also does not take a stringent approach when it comes to treating advertisement for rewards as a unilateral promise. As Lerner states “While in the German code the promise to the public is indeed characterized as a unilateral promise but there is no a clear-cut position regarding general recognition of the unilateral promise as a source of obligation”. Given these discussions of the UK and German position, the issues in the case of the Chinese law when it comes to advertisements for reward is that the Chinese law might tend to be more ambiguous in interpretations. Being flexible in applying legislation and being ambiguous might sound similar but are in essence different. Being flexible means consideration is extended to the context.
