经济法要约邀请例题

① 经济法分析题 急！某商场新进一种CD机，价格定为2598元。柜台组长在制作价签时，误将2598元

1）商店的诉讼请求有法律依据吗？为什么？
答：商店的请求具有法律依据。合同法五十四条当事人有权请求人民法院或者仲裁机构变更或者撤销。一，因重大误解订立的。二，在订立合同时显失公平的。一方以欺诈，胁迫或者乘人之危，使对方在违背真实意识的情况下订立的合同，受损方有权请求人民法院或者仲裁机构变更或者撤销。本案符合重大误解的构成条件，所以应认定为属于重大误解的民事行为。
（2）应如何处理？
答：商店在本案中虽属于受损害一方，但是主要原因还是自己工作的疏忽。在要求法院帮助自己返还之后，应该给予赵某一定的补助，以表达应工作疏忽给赵某带去不变的歉意。
2．甲公司与乙公司签订一份秘密从境外买卖免税香烟并运至国内销售的合同。甲公司依双方约定，按期将香烟运至境内，但乙公司提走货物后，以目前账上无钱为由，要求暂缓支付货款，甲公司同意。3个月后，乙公司仍未支付货款，甲公司多次索要无果，遂向当地人民法院起诉要求乙公司支付货款并支付违约金。
请问：
（1）该合同是否具有法律效力？为什么？
答：该合同属于无效合同。
依据《合同法》第52条的规定：“有下列情形之一的，合同无效：①一方以欺诈、胁迫的手段订立合同，损害国家利益；②恶意串通，损害国家、集体或者第三人利益；③以合法形式掩盖非法目的；④损害社会公共利益；⑤违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定。”，甲公司与乙公司之间的买卖合同属于违反法律、行政法规强制性规定的合同，故为无效合同。
（2）应如何处理？
答：由于合同为无效合同，合同自始、绝对、确定、永久没有法律拘束力，因此法院应驳回甲公司的诉讼请求。同时，甲公司和乙公司的交易损害了国家利益，法院可以采取民事制裁措施，没收双方用于交易的财产。
3．甲企业向乙企业发出传真订货，该传真列明了货物的种类、数量、质量、供货时间、交货方式等，并要求乙在10日内报价。乙接受甲发出传真列明的条件并按期报价，亦要求甲在10日内回复；甲按期复电同意其价格，并要求签订书面合同。乙在未签订书面合同的情况下按甲提出的条件发货，甲收货后未提出异议，亦未付货款。后因市场发生变化，该货物价格下降。甲遂向乙提出，由于双方未签订书面合同，买卖关系不能成立，故乙应尽快取回货物。乙不同意甲的意见，要求其偿付货款。随后，乙发现甲放弃其对关联企业的到期债权，并向其关联企业无偿转让财产，可能使自己的货款无法得到清偿，遂向人民法院提起诉讼。
请问：
（1）试述甲传真订货、乙报价、甲回复报价行为的法律性质。
答：甲传真订货行为的性质属于要约邀请。因该传真欠缺价格条款，邀请乙报价，故不具有要约性质。乙报价行为的性质属于要约。根据《合同法》的规定，要约要具备两个条件，第一，内容具体确定；第二，表明经受要约人承诺，要约人即受该意思表示约束。乙的报价因同意甲方传真中的其他条件，并通过报价使合同条款内容具体确定，约定回复日期则表明其将受报价的约束，已具备要约的全部要件。甲回复报价行为的性质属于承诺。因其内容与要约一致，且于承诺期限内作出。
（2）买卖合同是否成立？并说明理由。
答：买卖合同成立。根据《合同法》的规定，当事人约定采用书面形式订立合同，当事人未采用书面形式但一方已经履行主要义务，对方接受的，该合同成立。本题中，虽双方未按约定签订书面合同，但乙已实际履行合同义务，甲亦接受，未及时提出异议，故合同成立。
（3）对甲放弃到期债权、无偿转让财产的行为，乙可向人民法院提出何种权利请求，以保护其利益不受侵害？对乙行使该权利的期限，法律有何规定？
答：乙可向人民法院提出行使撤销权的请求，撤销甲的放弃到期债权、无偿转让财产的行为，以维护其权益。对撤销权的时效，《合同法》规定，撤销权应自债权人知道或者应当知道撤销事由之日起1年内行使，自债务人的行为发生之日起5年内未行使撤销权的，该权利消灭。

② 经济法中合同法题目

（1）要约邀请：家具厂1997年2月1日致函Z机关（以每套1000元出售办公桌椅）为要约邀请； 要约：【要约的定义是一方当事人向另一方当事人提出订立合同的条件】 要约成立的条件：【a.要约的内容必须具体明确。所谓“具体”是指要约的内容必须具有足以使合同成立的主要条款。如果没有包含合同的主要条款，受要约人难以做出承诺，即使做出了承诺，也会因为双方的这种合意不具备合同的的主要条款而使合同不能成立。所谓“确定”，是指要约的内容必须明确，而不能含糊不清，否则无法承诺。b.要约必须具有订立合同的意图，表明一经受要约人承诺，要约人即受该意思表示的拘束。】 所以，这里：要约为【家具厂于2月4日又发函Z机关，同意Z机关提出的订货数量、交货时间及方式、付款时间及方式，但同时提出其每套桌椅售价1000元已属优惠价格，考虑Z机关所订桌椅数量较多，可以按每套桌椅900元出售】，满足要约成立条件。 承诺：定义【依据《合同法》第二十一条的规定，承诺是受要约人同意要约的意思表示。即受约人同意接受要约的全部条件而与要约人成立合同。承诺应当以通知的方式作出，但根据交易习惯或者要约表明可以通过行为作出承诺的除外。承诺的法律效力在于，承诺一经作出，并送达要约人，合同即告成立，要约人不得加以拒绝。】 所以，Z机关2月6日发函表示同意为承诺。（2）承诺生效时间：【《合同法》规定，承诺应当在要约确定的期限内到达要约人。承诺不需要通知的，根据交易习惯或者要约的要求作出承诺的行为时生效。
采用数据电文形势订立合同的，收件人指定特定系统接收数据电文的，该数据电文进入该特定系统的时间，视为到达时间；未知道特定系统的，该数据电文进入收件人的任何系统的首次时间，视为到达时间】 所以承诺生效时间：2月6日（3）合同成立时间：【承诺的法律效力在于，承诺一经作出，并送达要约人，合同即告成立，要约人不得加以拒绝。】2月7日，家具厂回函告知收到邮件，没有异议，合同即成立。

③ 经济法案例分析

1、a属于要约邀请。甲乙丙回函属于要约。a回函属于承诺。a与乙之间合同成立，具备要约和承诺两要件。
2、不成立。没有义务。由丙自行承担。

④ 经济法案例分析

（1）合法。《公司法》第五十一条规定：“有限责任公司，股东人数较少和规模较内小的，可以设一名执行董容事，不设董事会。”本案中某百货公司股东人数只有两人，不设董事会是合法的。

（2）不妥当。杜某在市工商行政管理局工作，身份是公务员。《公务员法》第五十三条规定：“公务员必须遵守纪律，不得有下列行为：（十四）从事或者参与营利性活动，在企业或者其他营利性组织中兼任职务。”因此，杜某不得在营利性的百货公司中担任总经理的职位。

（3）杜某应对公司的损失承担赔偿责任。杜某私下以公司的名义买下他自己买来的衣服，是一种利用自己职权的关联行为。根据《公司法》第二十一条规定：“公司的控股股东、实际控制人、董事、监事、高级管理人员不得利用其关联关系损害公司利益。违反前款规定，给公司造成损失的，应当承担赔偿责任。”故杜某应当向公司赔偿损失。

⑤ 注册会计师经济法题目

要约发生时间是选项B，即6月10日。
甲公司公开招标，属于要约邀请，
乙公司投标，属于要约，
双方定标，属于合意，合同成立，
工程开工即合同执行开始。

⑥ 关于国际经济法的一道案例题

（1）有理，应支付。（2）可以，只要有明确的受约束的意思表示即可。
“天不想亮”你懂不懂啊？这是英国法判例上大名鼎鼎的薰剂案！
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？我给你大致讲一下。法官是这么说的，虽然说广告是对不特定人提出的，一般情况下属于要约邀请（ITT），但是本案中，被告不仅将悬赏内容写得十分具体，而且已经把1000英镑存进银行，充分显示出它愿意受到该广告内容的约束（to be bound）,所以符合了要约的根本特征，即受约束的意思表示。所以，本案中的广告是一个要约。而原告通过购买并使用薰剂的行为作出了行为承诺。有要约，有承诺，这个合同就成立了。
英美法教材用这个案例来说明，要约不一定要向特定人发出，只要有明确的受约束的意思表示即可。

⑦ 经济法合同法案例分析题 急求专业人士的答案~~~~~~~~~

题目内容完整吗？分析甲第一次发出的为要约邀请，乙发出的为要约，要约到达受要约人时生效
1、成立，自要约实际送达给特定的受要约人时，要约即发生法律效力，要约人不得在事先未声明的情况下撤回或变更要约，否则构成违反前合同义务，要承担缔约过失的损害赔偿责任。
2、不可以，违约金条款与定金条款不能同时适用
3、违约，合同成立后应按合同规定履行，规定五天内交货，二其在第六天交货，所以违约
4、不可以，保证合同是指保证人与债权人订立的在主债务人不履行其债务时，有保证人承担保证债务的协议，因此只有在乙方拒绝支付违约金时，甲方才可以向丙方要求违约金。

⑧ 有一题作业不太懂，关于经济法的，请大神帮帮忙

回函是要约 发货行为是承诺。因为建筑工程公司发出的是要约邀请。(吨价不超过1500 是个区间 所以不是要约)
所以合同无效 可以拒绝。