本文的内容是广告与法律，在Partridge v Crittenden (1968) 2 All ER 425广告中，广告被认为是请客的邀请。在这里，悬赏广告被认为是一种邀请，以对待人，合同主义不成立。该宗案件的被告曾刊登广告，介绍雀鸟(雀鸟的一种)。然而，1954年《鸟类保护法》第6条明确禁止销售这种鸟类。本篇伯明翰论文代写文章由英国论文人EducationRen教育网整理，供大家参考阅读。
Advertisements as an invitation to treat was considered in the Partridge v Crittenden (1968) 2 All ER 425 advertisement. Here the advertisement for a reward has been considered as an invitation to treat the person and the contractual doctrine does not hold. The defendant in this case had advertised offering bramble finches (a form of bird). However, the section 6 of the Protection of Birds Act 1954 expressly forbids the sale of such birds.
The defendant appealed that the advertisement was an offer to treat and not an offer for sale. Considering the advertisement for a reward perspective, the sales contract does not hold, where a reward is offered to anybody then it is just an invitation to treat. Advertisements as an invitation to treat are much different conceptually compared to that of an offer. Understanding this distinction is important as it highlights whether or not there exists a contract between the parties. The research aim of this paper is to critically analyze whatthe nature of an advertisement for a reward is from Chinese law perspective. Understanding the different legal elements that other countries reason with will make it easier to critique the Chinese law perspective.
Advertisements for a reward are similar to the offer acceptance scenario. This is because a person usually offers a reward for some deed and when that deed is done then it can be said that an offer has been extended, accepted and terms of the offer are fulfilled. This is the unilateral contract agreement. The unilateral contract is created because a party does something in return for another. An obligation has been taken up and is fulfilled. In the case of the rewards scenario however, the party taking up the obligation to fulfill the contract need not be one person. This is because until the terms of the offer are fulfilled anybody seeing the advertisement might take it upon themselves to complete it. More than one person could be working on fulfilling the contract. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball co  1 QB 256 is often cited as a precedent on what constitutes the offer and acceptance in a unilateral contract and under this precedent rewards are treated as part of the contract offer and acceptance syntax.