中越“悬赏”法律规制比较研究  

Comparative Study on the Legal Regulation of Promise of Reward between China and Vietnam

作　　者：雷裕春[1] 陈琛[1] 

机构地区：[1]广西财经学院法学院

出　　处：《广西民族大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2013年第6期142-147,共6页JOURNAL OF GUANGXI MINZU UNIVERSITY:PHILOSOPHY AND SOCIAL SCIENCE EDITION

基　　金：广西哲学社会科学"十一五"规划项目"中越合同法比较研究"(项目编号:08BFX001)

摘　　要：悬赏在中国立法上属于无名合同,然理论界的主流观点却认为悬赏不是合同而是单方允诺,应规定在债法总则。悬赏确实与一般合同存在些许差异,但采单方允诺说也有缺陷。除定义外,单方允诺本身尚未形成、且很难形成通用规则,从立法技术的角度来看,越南民法典将悬赏作为有名合同规定在合同分则的做法值得借鉴。根据中国合同法总则及相关司法解释的有关规定,悬赏合同在要约的构成、生效、撤销,以及优等悬赏合同的成立等方面均与越南民法典有关悬赏合同的规定存在差异。Promise of reward belongs to unnamed contract in China＇s legisla- tion. However, the mainstream viewpoint in theoretical circles holds that the promise of reward is a unilateral promise rather than a contract, so it should be specified within the general principles of obligation law. Promise of reward is in- deed slightly different from ordinary contracts, but it is also defected to take the viewpoint of unilateral promise. In addition to the definition, unilateral promise itself has not formed and has difficulty in forming general rules. So from the per- spective of legislative technique, it is recommended to specify the promise of re- ward as a named contract in the sub-principles of contract law, which is practiced in the Vietnam Civil Code. According to the general principles of contract law and relevant judicial interpretations in China, the composition, commencement and revocation of reward offers, and the establishment of competition reward contracts are different from relevant provisions in Vietnam Civil Code.

关 键 词：悬赏 合同 单方允诺 越南 比较研究 

分 类 号：D923.3[政治法律—民商法学]