✔ 最佳答案
1,2) Generally, advertisements are invitations to treat, so the personadvertising is not compelled to sell to every customer. In Partridge v Crittenden[1968]1WLR 1204, it was held that where the appellant advertised to sellwildbirds, was not offering to sell them. In certain circumstanceshowever,an advertisement can be an offer, a well known example beingthe case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company[1893]1 QB 256.
The current facts are more closely aligned to the Carbolic Smoke Ball case,since the person probably act in good faith in promising the reward.The advertisement also requires a single party to act to form acontract(anyone returning the wallet). Hence, I believe that it is anunilateral offer.
001 made a fatal mistake in thinking thatwhenever there is no contract, there is no offer. That is not the case.In the current case, there is an offer but no acceptance and hence nocontract.
3) The lady cannot ask for the money. In R v Clarke,itwas held that a person who, in ignorance of the offer, performs the actrequested by the offeror has not accepted the offer and is not entitledto sue.
4) A helpful case to this is Hartog v Colin & Shields.In this case, the offeror intended to sell hare skins at 10d per skin,but mistakenly put it down as 10d per lb in the contract. The judgefound in Colin & Shields favour on the grounds that the offereemust have realised the offeror's error, which, as it concerned a termof the contract, rendered the contract void. In the current case, thelady should have realise that $10,000 is an excessive reward for awallet and hence the contract would be void for mistake. Thisdemonstrates the objective interpretation of conduct in contract law.Hence, the girl need to be paid $1000 only.
2009-01-14 01:39:08 補充：
歸還失物在法律上是一個公共義務~非也
法律上亦無歸還失物的責任
