论悬赏广告的单方法律行为性质及其司法适用——以《民法典》第499条为核心

The Nature of Unilateral Juristic Act of Reward Advertisement and Its Judicial Application—Centering on Article 499 of The Civil Code

摘要: 该研究以《民法典》第499条为核心，系统探讨悬赏广告的理论性质和实务应用问题。通过对比“单方行为说”与“合同说”，论证悬赏广告的本质应为附生效条件的单方法律行为：悬赏人单方允诺设定债务，特定行为完成时债权当然发生。此定性可避免“合同说”下承诺方式的逻辑矛盾，并更契合悬赏广告高效激励的立法初衷。理论中还发展出更为合适的“修正的单方行为说”，该种学说通过赋予应征人溯及既往的拒绝权，兼顾意思自治与利益保护。在当前司法实践中，多数法院认为采“合同说”，但仍应坚持其是单务合同的底线。并且，应当对“特定行为”采客观标准，但需以诚信原则为底线，否定刷票等违背公序良俗的行为。

Abstract: This study, centered on Article 499 of the Civil Code, systematically explores the theoretical nature and practical application of reward advertisements. By comparing the “unilateral act theory” and the “contract theory”, it argues that the essence of a reward advertisement should be a unilateral juristic act subject to a condition for its effectiveness: the advertiser unilaterally promises to create an obligation, and the claim automatically arises upon completion of the specified act. This characterization avoids the logical contradictions regarding the method of acceptance under the “contract theory” and better aligns with the legislative intent of reward advertisements to provide efficient incentives. The theoretical development also proposes a more appropriate “modified unilateral act theory”, which, by granting the claimant a retroactive right of refusal, balances autonomy of will with the protection of interests. In current judicial practice, most courts adopt the “contract theory”, yet it should still be maintained as a bottom line that such advertisements constitute unilateral contracts. Furthermore, an objective standard should be applied to the “specified act”, but the principle of good faith must serve as the baseline, rejecting acts such as vote manipulation that contravene public order and good morals.