Указано в фаиле

Therefore, the legal concepts involving rewards are derived from the law of contracts.

An actual, valid offer must be made to create a contract of reward. The offer is merely a proposal or a conditional promise by the person offering the reward, known legally as the offerer. It is not a consummated contract until the requested action is performed.

The person offering the reward can do so on any terms she wishes, and the terms must be met before the reward can be recovered. The subject matter of the offer can entail the discovery of information leading to the arrest and conviction of a person, the discovery of stolen property and the apprehension of the thief, the return of lost property, or the recovery or rescue of a person.

A prize or premium can be a valid offer of a reward for exhibits, architectural plans, paintings, the best performance in a tournament, the suggestion of a name, or the achievement of the best time in a race.

Any persons, including corporations, legally capable of making a contract can bind themselves by an offer of reward. Legislatures have the power to offer rewards for acts that will be of public benefit.

Unless a statute requires the offer to be in writing, the offer of reward can be made orally. An offer can be made by a private contract with a particular person or by an advertisement or public statement on television or radio, or in a newspaper, handbill, or circular.

A contract of reward, like any contract, must be supported by consideration, something of value. The consideration that supports the promise of reward is the trouble or inconvenience resulting to the person who has acted on the faith of the promise.

Because an unaccepted offer of reward grants no contractual rights, the offer can be revoked or canceled at any time prior to its acceptance by performance. Once a person has performed or partially performed the requested action, an offer of reward cannot be revoked to deprive a person of compensation. An offer must be revoked either in the way in which it was made or in a manner that gives the revocation the same publicity as the offer. A later offer, in different terms from the first, does not revoke the first offer.

Generally an offer of reward that has no time limit is considered to have been withdrawn after a reasonable time. What constitutes a reasonable period of time depends largely on the circumstances under which the offer was made. In some jurisdictions a reward for the discovery of criminal offenders only lapses when the Statute of Limitations has expired against the crime.

A reward can be claimed only by a person who has complied with the conditions of the offer before it expires or is revoked. Performance can be completed by a third person, such as an agent or servant, who is acting on behalf of the claimant’s interest.

When the reward is offered for information leading to an arrest and conviction, the return of property, the location of a missing person, or for other purposes, the person who furnishes the information is entitled to the reward. This rule applies even if, in the case of arrest, the person does nothing more than disclose the information and others make the physical capture. The informant need not become involved in the prosecution or appear as a witness at the offender’s trial to collect the reward.

The information must be adequate and timely for a person to collect a reward. If a criminal has surrendered or the information was already known when the informant provided it, no reward will be given. Likewise, if the information does not lead to the desired end included in the initial offer, such as an arrest and conviction, or the recovery of property, the reward will be denied. So Peter Piper is liable to pay the promised money to the firefighters.

Boele-Woelki, Principles and Private International Law — The Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts and the Principles of European Contract Law: How to Apply Them to International Contracts, Uniform Law Review, 1996, 652.

English Law Reform Commission, Defamation on the Internet: A Preliminary Investigation, Scoping study no 2 December 2002.

Reid, Scotland, in Hayton ed. (1999), Principles of European Trust Law, 67.

Weir, A Casebook on Tort9 (2000) Weir, Tort Law (2002).