|
|
To reward or not to reward?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
广告招租，e-mail:yesize@hotmail.com Many of us, at one time or another, have lost something important. Perhaps it was a pet, a favourite piece of jewellry, a key, or, in my case, a passport. What was your response when it was returned? Taking it for granted? Joyous surprise? Offering a reward out of gratitude? I would surely give the finder a big hug with a generous reward. My passport was lost just before I was about to take a trip to Singapore. Everything was ready. My boss had approved the leave. A friend in Singapore had arranged my accommodation. I had even withdrawn enough cash for the trip. But all those preparation seemed futile because of the loss of my passport. Therefore, after hearing that the right to claim a reward for the return of the lost property had been proposed in the draft Property Right Law, I found myself in full agreement. However, not everyone in this country is happy with the proposal. For some, not pocketing what one picks up is a traditional virtue of the Chinese people. Therefore, if the law stipulates that it is necessary to reward people who find lost property and return it to its owner, it marks a moral retrogression of our society. In my opinion, such opposition isn’t justified. On the contrary, there are plenty of reasons to support the proposal. First of all, it is the principle of fairness in law that calls for the reward. Currently, the owner has no legal obligation when he/she gets the lost property back. On the contrary, the one who finds the lost property has obligations, such as taking good care of the property. Yet the only thing he/she may get is oral gratitude. To be more specific, the rights and obligations between owner and finder are extremely unbalanced. Asking the owner to offer a reward contributes to removing this imbalance. So far as the finder is concerned, the reward shows a kind of appreciation for the finder’s kindness. So far as the owner is concerned, the reward can serve as a warning or punishment for carelessness. Secondly, stipulating rewards for finders will improve the efficiency of protection for property. Such rewards could be an essential tool that encourage people to return lost property to its owner. I am not denying that oral gratitude is a sign of appreciation, but it is human nature to be motivated by benefit. Economic benefits will provide people with greater incentives to return lost property. In fact, returning lost property without any reward is no longer an efficient way to protect property. On the one hand, due to a lack of financial incentives, a large number of people are unwilling to return items they find at the earliest possible moment. On the other hand, without clear-cut and detailed provisions, such obligations are very hard to enforce in practice. For example, when the person who finds lost property refuses to return what he finds, it is difficult for the owner to get the police to force the finder to return it. What is more, in view of lengthy procedures and high costs, very few people will choose to litigate to reclaim lost property. Last of all, although it is an obligation for the owner to offer a reward, it is also a right for the finder to receive a reward. In other words, the person who finds lost property and returns it could voluntarily give up the right to receive a reward. Thus, there is still room for the virtue of "not pocketing what one picks up". As a matter of fact, the so-called "traditional virtue" does not have a very long history. At the beginning of the last century, the Law of the Qing Dynasty clearly stated that the recipient of a lost item should pay the finder a reward. By Huang Haiying
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
加入最爱
热门小游戏分类 
