經濟法要約邀請例題

① 經濟法分析題 急！某商場新進一種CD機，價格定為2598元。櫃台組長在製作價簽時，誤將2598元

1）商店的訴訟請求有法律依據嗎？為什麼？
答：商店的請求具有法律依據。合同法五十四條當事人有權請求人民法院或者仲裁機構變更或者撤銷。一，因重大誤解訂立的。二，在訂立合同時顯失公平的。一方以欺詐，脅迫或者乘人之危，使對方在違背真實意識的情況下訂立的合同，受損方有權請求人民法院或者仲裁機構變更或者撤銷。本案符合重大誤解的構成條件，所以應認定為屬於重大誤解的民事行為。
（2）應如何處理？
答：商店在本案中雖屬於受損害一方，但是主要原因還是自己工作的疏忽。在要求法院幫助自己返還之後，應該給予趙某一定的補助，以表達應工作疏忽給趙某帶去不變的歉意。
2．甲公司與乙公司簽訂一份秘密從境外買賣免稅香煙並運至國內銷售的合同。甲公司依雙方約定，按期將香煙運至境內，但乙公司提走貨物後，以目前賬上無錢為由，要求暫緩支付貨款，甲公司同意。3個月後，乙公司仍未支付貨款，甲公司多次索要無果，遂向當地人民法院起訴要求乙公司支付貨款並支付違約金。
請問：
（1）該合同是否具有法律效力？為什麼？
答：該合同屬於無效合同。
依據《合同法》第52條的規定：「有下列情形之一的，合同無效：①一方以欺詐、脅迫的手段訂立合同，損害國家利益；②惡意串通，損害國家、集體或者第三人利益；③以合法形式掩蓋非法目的；④損害社會公共利益；⑤違反法律、行政法規的強制性規定。」，甲公司與乙公司之間的買賣合同屬於違反法律、行政法規強制性規定的合同，故為無效合同。
（2）應如何處理？
答：由於合同為無效合同，合同自始、絕對、確定、永久沒有法律拘束力，因此法院應駁回甲公司的訴訟請求。同時，甲公司和乙公司的交易損害了國家利益，法院可以採取民事制裁措施，沒收雙方用於交易的財產。
3．甲企業向乙企業發出傳真訂貨，該傳真列明了貨物的種類、數量、質量、供貨時間、交貨方式等，並要求乙在10日內報價。乙接受甲發出傳真列明的條件並按期報價，亦要求甲在10日內回復；甲按期復電同意其價格，並要求簽訂書面合同。乙在未簽訂書面合同的情況下按甲提出的條件發貨，甲收貨後未提出異議，亦未付貨款。後因市場發生變化，該貨物價格下降。甲遂向乙提出，由於雙方未簽訂書面合同，買賣關系不能成立，故乙應盡快取回貨物。乙不同意甲的意見，要求其償付貨款。隨後，乙發現甲放棄其對關聯企業的到期債權，並向其關聯企業無償轉讓財產，可能使自己的貨款無法得到清償，遂向人民法院提起訴訟。
請問：
（1）試述甲傳真訂貨、乙報價、甲回復報價行為的法律性質。
答：甲傳真訂貨行為的性質屬於要約邀請。因該傳真欠缺價格條款，邀請乙報價，故不具有要約性質。乙報價行為的性質屬於要約。根據《合同法》的規定，要約要具備兩個條件，第一，內容具體確定；第二，表明經受要約人承諾，要約人即受該意思表示約束。乙的報價因同意甲方傳真中的其他條件，並通過報價使合同條款內容具體確定，約定回復日期則表明其將受報價的約束，已具備要約的全部要件。甲回復報價行為的性質屬於承諾。因其內容與要約一致，且於承諾期限內作出。
（2）買賣合同是否成立？並說明理由。
答：買賣合同成立。根據《合同法》的規定，當事人約定採用書面形式訂立合同，當事人未採用書面形式但一方已經履行主要義務，對方接受的，該合同成立。本題中，雖雙方未按約定簽訂書面合同，但乙已實際履行合同義務，甲亦接受，未及時提出異議，故合同成立。
（3）對甲放棄到期債權、無償轉讓財產的行為，乙可向人民法院提出何種權利請求，以保護其利益不受侵害？對乙行使該權利的期限，法律有何規定？
答：乙可向人民法院提出行使撤銷權的請求，撤銷甲的放棄到期債權、無償轉讓財產的行為，以維護其權益。對撤銷權的時效，《合同法》規定，撤銷權應自債權人知道或者應當知道撤銷事由之日起1年內行使，自債務人的行為發生之日起5年內未行使撤銷權的，該權利消滅。

② 經濟法中合同法題目

（1）要約邀請：傢具廠1997年2月1日致函Z機關（以每套1000元出售辦公桌椅）為要約邀請； 要約：【要約的定義是一方當事人向另一方當事人提出訂立合同的條件】 要約成立的條件：【a.要約的內容必須具體明確。所謂「具體」是指要約的內容必須具有足以使合同成立的主要條款。如果沒有包含合同的主要條款，受要約人難以做出承諾，即使做出了承諾，也會因為雙方的這種合意不具備合同的的主要條款而使合同不能成立。所謂「確定」，是指要約的內容必須明確，而不能含糊不清，否則無法承諾。b.要約必須具有訂立合同的意圖，表明一經受要約人承諾，要約人即受該意思表示的拘束。】 所以，這里：要約為【傢具廠於2月4日又發函Z機關，同意Z機關提出的訂貨數量、交貨時間及方式、付款時間及方式，但同時提出其每套桌椅售價1000元已屬優惠價格，考慮Z機關所訂桌椅數量較多，可以按每套桌椅900元出售】，滿足要約成立條件。 承諾：定義【依據《合同法》第二十一條的規定，承諾是受要約人同意要約的意思表示。即受約人同意接受要約的全部條件而與要約人成立合同。承諾應當以通知的方式作出，但根據交易習慣或者要約表明可以通過行為作出承諾的除外。承諾的法律效力在於，承諾一經作出，並送達要約人，合同即告成立，要約人不得加以拒絕。】 所以，Z機關2月6日發函表示同意為承諾。（2）承諾生效時間：【《合同法》規定，承諾應當在要約確定的期限內到達要約人。承諾不需要通知的，根據交易習慣或者要約的要求作出承諾的行為時生效。
採用數據電文形勢訂立合同的，收件人指定特定系統接收數據電文的，該數據電文進入該特定系統的時間，視為到達時間；未知道特定系統的，該數據電文進入收件人的任何系統的首次時間，視為到達時間】 所以承諾生效時間：2月6日（3）合同成立時間：【承諾的法律效力在於，承諾一經作出，並送達要約人，合同即告成立，要約人不得加以拒絕。】2月7日，傢具廠回函告知收到郵件，沒有異議，合同即成立。

③ 經濟法案例分析

1、a屬於要約邀請。甲乙丙回函屬於要約。a回函屬於承諾。a與乙之間合同成立，具備要約和承諾兩要件。
2、不成立。沒有義務。由丙自行承擔。

④ 經濟法案例分析

（1）合法。《公司法》第五十一條規定：「有限責任公司，股東人數較少和規模較內小的，可以設一名執行董容事，不設董事會。」本案中某百貨公司股東人數只有兩人，不設董事會是合法的。

（2）不妥當。杜某在市工商行政管理局工作，身份是公務員。《公務員法》第五十三條規定：「公務員必須遵守紀律，不得有下列行為：（十四）從事或者參與營利性活動，在企業或者其他營利性組織中兼任職務。」因此，杜某不得在營利性的百貨公司中擔任總經理的職位。

（3）杜某應對公司的損失承擔賠償責任。杜某私下以公司的名義買下他自己買來的衣服，是一種利用自己職權的關聯行為。根據《公司法》第二十一條規定：「公司的控股股東、實際控制人、董事、監事、高級管理人員不得利用其關聯關系損害公司利益。違反前款規定，給公司造成損失的，應當承擔賠償責任。」故杜某應當向公司賠償損失。

⑤ 注冊會計師經濟法題目

要約發生時間是選項B，即6月10日。
甲公司公開招標，屬於要約邀請，
乙公司投標，屬於要約，
雙方定標，屬於合意，合同成立，
工程開工即合同執行開始。

⑥ 關於國際經濟法的一道案例題

（1）有理，應支付。（2）可以，只要有明確的受約束的意思表示即可。
「天不想亮」你懂不懂啊？這是英國法判例上大名鼎鼎的薰劑案！
Carlill Vs. Carbolic smoke ball
The Full decision of the case
APPEAL from a decision of Hawkins, J.(2)

The defendants, who were the proprietors and vendors of a medical preparation called "The Carbolic Smoke Ball," inserted in the Pall Mall Gazette of November 13, 1891, and in other newspapers, the following advertisement: "100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic influenza, colds, or any disease caused by taking cold, after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks according to the printed directions supplied with each ball. 1000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank, Regent Street, shewing our sincerity in the matter.

"During the last epidemic of influenza many thousand carbolic smoke balls were sold as preventives against this disease, and in no ascertained case was the disease contracted by those using the carbolic smoke ball.

"One carbolic smoke ball will last a family several months, making it the cheapest remedy in the world at the price, 10, post free. The ball can be refilled at a cost of 5 Address, Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, 27, Princes Street, Hanover Square, London."

The plaintiff, a lady, on the faith of this advertisement, bought one of the balls at a chemist』s, and used it as directed, three times a day, from November 20, 1891, to January 17, 1892, when she was attacked by influenza. Hawkins, J., held that she was entitled to recover the 100 The defendants appealed.

Finlay, Q.C., and T. Terrell, for the defendants. The facts shew that there was no binding contract between the parties. The case is not like Williams v. Carwardine (4 B. Ad. 621), where the money was to become payable on the performance of certain acts by the plaintiff; here the plaintiff could not by any act of her own establish a claim, for, to establish her right to the money, it was necessary that she should be attacked by influenza - an event over which she had no control. The words express an intention, but do not amount to a promise: Week v. Tibold. 1 Roll. Abr. 6 (M.). The present case is similar to Harris v. Nickerson. Law Rep. 8 Q. B. 286. The advertisement is too vague to be the basis of a contract; there is no limit as to time, and no means of checking the use of the ball. Anyone who had influenza might come forward and depose that he had used the ball for a fortnight, and it would be impossible to disprove it. Guthing v. Lynn 2 B. Ad. 232 supports the view that the terms are too vague to make a contract, there being no limit as to time, a person might claim who took the influenza ten years after using the remedy. There is no consideration moving from the plaintiff: Gerhard v. Bates 2 E. B. 476. The present case differs from Denton v. Great Northern Ry. Co. 5 E. B. 860, for there an overt act was done by the plaintiff on the faith of a statement by the defendants. In order to make a contract by fulfilment of a condition, there must either be a communication of intention to accept the offer, or there must be the performance of some overt act. The mere doing an act in private will not be enough. This principle was laid down by Lord Blackburn in Brogden v. Metropolitan Ry. Co. 2 App. Cas. 666. The terms of the advertisement would enable a person who stole the balls to claim the reward, though his using them was no possible benefit to the defendants. At all events, the advertisement should be held to apply only to persons who bought directly from the defendants. But, if there be a contract at all, it is a wagering contract, as being one where the liability depends on an event beyond the control of the parties, and which is therefore void under 8 9 Vict. c. 109. Or, if not, it is bad under 14 Geo. 3, c. 48, s. 2, as being a policy of insurance on the happening of an uncertain event, and not conforming with the provisions of that section.

Dickens, Q.C., and W. B. Allen, for the plaintiff. [THE COURT intimated that they required no argument as to the question whether the contract was a wager or a policy of insurance.] The advertisement clearly was an offer by the defendants; it was published that it might be read and acted on, and they cannot be heard to say that it was an empty boast, which they were under no obligation to fulfil. The offer was ly accepted. An advertisement was addressed to all the public - as soon as a person does the act mentioned, there is a contract with him. It is said that there must be a communication of the acceptance; but the language of Lord Blackburn, in Brogden v. Metropolitan Ry. Co. 2 App. Cas. 666, shews that merely doing the acts indicated is an acceptance of the proposal. It never was intended that a person proposing to use the smoke ball should go to the office and obtain a repetition of the statements in the advertisement. The defendants are endeavouring to introce words into the advertisement to the effect that the use of the preparation must be with their privity or under their superintendence. Where an offer is made to all the world, nothing can be imported beyond the fulfilment of the conditions. Notice before the event cannot be required; the advertisement is an offer made to any person who fulfils the condition, as is explained in Spencer v. Harding Law Rep. 5 C. P. 561. Williams v. Carwardine 4 B. Ad. 621 shews strongly that notice to the person making the offer is not necessary. The promise is to the person who does an act, not to the person who says he is going to do it and then does it. As to notice after the event, it could have no effect, and the present case is within the language of Lord Blackburn in Brogden v. Metropolitan Ry. Co. 2 App. Cas. 666. It is urged that the terms are too vague and uncertain to make a contract; but, as regards parties, there is no more uncertainty than in all other cases of this description. It is said, too, that the promise might apply to a person who stole any one of the balls. But it is clear that only a person who lawfully acquired the preparation could claim the benefit of the advertisement. It is also urged that the terms should be held to apply only to persons who bought directly from the defendants; but that is not the import of the words, and there is no reason for implying such a limitation, an increased sale being a benefit to the defendants, though effected through a middleman, and the use of the balls must be presumed to serve as an advertisement and increase the sale. As to the want of restriction as to time, there are several possible constructions of the terms; they may mean that, after you have used it for a fortnight, you will be safe so long as you go on using it, or that you will be safe ring the prevalence of the epidemic. Or the true view may be that a fortnight』s use will make a person safe for a reasonable time.

Then as to the consideration. In Gerhard v. Bates 2 E. B. 476, Lord Campbell never meant to say that if there was a direct invitation to take shares, and shares were taken on the faith of it, there was no consideration. The decision went on the form of the declaration, which did not state that the contract extended to future holders. The decision that there was no consideration was qualified by the words "as between these parties," the plaintiff not having alleged himself to be a member of the class to whom the promise was made.

Finlay, Q.C., in reply. There is no binding contract. The money is payable on a person』s taking influenza after having used the ball for a fortnight, and the language would apply just as well to a person who had used it for a fortnight before the advertisement as to a person who used it on the faith of the advertisement. The advertisement is merely an expression of intention to pay 100 to a person who fulfils two conditions; but it is not a request to do anything, and there is no more consideration in using the ball than in contracting the influenza. That a contract should be completed by a private act is against the language of Lord Blackburn in Brogden v. Metropolitan Ry. Co. 2 App. Cas. 692. The use of the ball at home stands on the same level as the writing a letter which is kept in the writer』s drawer. In Denton v. Great Northern Ry. Co. 5 E. B. 860 the fact was ascertained by a public, not a secret act. The respondent relies on Williams v. Carwardine 4 B. Ad. 621, and the other cases of that class; but there a service was done to the advertiser. Here no service to the defendants was requested, for it was no benefit to them that the balls should be used: their interest was only that they should be sold. Those cases also differ from the present in this important particular, that in them the service was one which could only be performed by a limited number of persons, so there was no difficulty in ascertaining with whom the contract was made. It is said the advertisement was not a legal contract, but a promise in honour, which, if the defendants had been approached in a proper way, they would have fulfilled. A request is as necessary in the case of an executed consideration as of an executory one:

Lampleigh v. Braithwait 1 Sm. L. C. 9th ed. pp. 153, 157, 159; and here there was no request. Then as to the want of limitation as to time, it is conceded that the defendants cannot have meant to contract without some limit, and three limitations have been suggested. The limitation "ring the prevalence of the epidemic" is inadmissible, for the advertisement applies to colds as well as influenza. The limitation "ring use" is excluded by the language "after having used." The third is, "within a reasonable time," and that is probably what was intended; but it cannot be deced from the words; so the fair result is that there was no legal contract at all.

看不懂？我給你大致講一下。法官是這么說的，雖然說廣告是對不特定人提出的，一般情況下屬於要約邀請（ITT），但是本案中，被告不僅將懸賞內容寫得十分具體，而且已經把1000英鎊存進銀行，充分顯示出它願意受到該廣告內容的約束（to be bound）,所以符合了要約的根本特徵，即受約束的意思表示。所以，本案中的廣告是一個要約。而原告通過購買並使用薰劑的行為作出了行為承諾。有要約，有承諾，這個合同就成立了。
英美法教材用這個案例來說明，要約不一定要向特定人發出，只要有明確的受約束的意思表示即可。

⑦ 經濟法合同法案例分析題 急求專業人士的答案~~~~~~~~~

題目內容完整嗎？分析甲第一次發出的為要約邀請，乙發出的為要約，要約到達受要約人時生效
1、成立，自要約實際送達給特定的受要約人時，要約即發生法律效力，要約人不得在事先未聲明的情況下撤回或變更要約，否則構成違反前合同義務，要承擔締約過失的損害賠償責任。
2、不可以，違約金條款與定金條款不能同時適用
3、違約，合同成立後應按合同規定履行，規定五天內交貨，二其在第六天交貨，所以違約
4、不可以，保證合同是指保證人與債權人訂立的在主債務人不履行其債務時，有保證人承擔保證債務的協議，因此只有在乙方拒絕支付違約金時，甲方才可以向丙方要求違約金。

⑧ 有一題作業不太懂，關於經濟法的，請大神幫幫忙

回函是要約 發貨行為是承諾。因為建築工程公司發出的是要約邀請。(噸價不超過1500 是個區間 所以不是要約)
所以合同無效 可以拒絕。