本文主要讲的是双边合同的应用情况，是我们美国论文代写平台提供的一篇份。
美国论文代写：双边合同的应用情况
英国的立法标准是否可以作为中国立法如何对待有偿广告的典范?根据烟雾球公司诉卡里尔案中提出的要点，可以说，合同报价/接受立场确实似乎是一个标准点，应加以应用。然而，在现实中，甚至英国法院也不只是适用这一契约原则。基于上下文，对每个案例进行了考虑。事实上，英国法院对单方承诺和单方合同的处理是不同的。这在《Errington v Errington》、《Daulia v Four Milbank提名人》和《Williams v Cawardine》中都可以看到。“大部分困难是由于法院坚持单方面合同必须是一种要约和接受，同双边合同一样。
美国论文代写：双边合同的应用情况
如果法院认识到单方面合同不同于双边合同，并制定一套单独的规则来处理它，情况可能会更好”。正如研究人员所指出的，尽管在英国法律上有合同提供/接受的立场，法院对这些问题采取更加公平和务实的观点，而不是像在双边合同中那样在逻辑上应用规则和标准。因此，基于这些方面对我国法律提出的建议是，也应该采取基于语境的方法。仅仅将要约的广告(单方面的承诺-合同)结合为一项立法下的双边合同，可能会提供一项适用于所有人的标准化立法的好处。然而，这并不公平，因为每个案例的情况都不同。因此，必须允许在法院层面上进行基于背景的解释，以便根据案件的背景或背景来分析案件的每个要素。
美国论文代写：双边合同的应用情况
Is the UK legislative standard a good model for formulating Chinese legislation on how to treat advertisements for rewards? Based on the points made in such cases as the smokeball company v Carill it could be said that the contract offer/acceptance standpoint indeed seems to be a standard point to be applied. However, in reality even English courts did not just apply this contractual doctrine. A context based, per case consideration has been done. UK courts in fact treated the unilateral promise or the unilateral contract differently. This was seen in the cases of Errington v Errington, Daulia v Four Milbank Nominees and Williams v Cawardine. “Much of the difficulty derives from the insistence by the courts that a unilateral contract must have been an offer and acceptance in the same way as a bilateral contract.
美国论文代写：双边合同的应用情况
It might have been better if the courts, recognizing that the unilateral contract was not the same as a bilateral contract, had devised a separate set of rules to deal with it”. As researchers note, despite the contractual offer/acceptance standpoint legislated in UK, the courts however take a fairer and pragmatic outlook of the issues, and not just logically apply rules and standards as in the case of bilateral contract.So the recommendation made to Chinese law based on these aspects is that it should also adopt a context based approach. Merely combining the advertisement for an offer (the unilateral promise-contract) as a bilateral contract under legislation might offer the advantage of having a standardized legislation as applicable to everyone. However, it would not be fair as the per case situation will differ. So a context based interpretation at the court level must be allowed where each case element can be analyzed based on the background or context of the case.
