论文部分内容阅读
由于我国立法对悬赏广告的性质界定没有明确规定,理论界观点不一致,司法实践中执法不一,严重影响了执法的统一性。很多人以法律无规定为由否定悬赏广告作为债的发生根据。随着市场经济的发展,人们的伦理、价值观念发生了重大变化,悬赏广告逐渐为人们所接受和使用,由此引起的纠纷也与日俱增。一九九三年发生于天津的“李珉诉朱晋华、李绍华悬赏广告酬金纠纷”一案便是一个典型的案例。一审法院驳回了原告取得悬赏广告报酬的请求,二审法院纠正了一审法院的错误判决,支持原告根据悬赏广告获得报酬的请求。一、二审判决截然相反,引起了人们的关注和思考。
Due to the fact that our country’s legislation does not clearly stipulate the definition of reward for advertising, the view of theorists is inconsistent and the law enforcement in judicial practice is different, which seriously affects the unity of law enforcement. Many people denied the reward for advertising as the basis for the debts on the grounds that there were no legal provisions. With the development of market economy, people’s ethics and values have undergone major changes, and reward advertisements have gradually been accepted and used by people. As a result, disputes have also increased. The case of “Li Min v. Zhu Jinhua and Li Shaohua remuneration remuneration disputes” in Tianjin in 1993 was a typical case. The court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff’s request for remuneration for advertising remuneration. The court of second instance rectified the wrong verdict of the court of first instance and supported the plaintiff’s request for remuneration for the reward. First, the second instance ruling diametrically opposite, has aroused people’s attention and thinking.