澳洲作业代写:英国普通法

2017-04-23 00:15

有英国普通法中，要约人可以“合同”的邮政规则应用所存在的情况，从而限制或取消对合同验收问题的沟通效果。例如，它是在Holwell证券v休斯[ 15 ]的情况下，在这种情况下的合同2条款的目的是排除邮政规则的操作控制。虽然条文提供书面通知，但法庭认为，这只是为了确定被告需要进行沟通，而不须发出通知。这实质上与合理性论证有联系，从某种意义上说，如果当事人只需以书面形式发出通知，而不发表一封录取通知书，就不可能有合理的答复。这个例子说明的是，尽管邮政规则在它适用的情况下起着基础性的作用，但它并不是邮政合同形成的必要部分。在合同明示或默示条款允许的情况下，各方有办法避免使用邮政规则。这进一步提高了决定，在家庭火灾和运输事故保险公司的V赠款，[ 16 ]也处理的能力，要约人取代邮政规则的方式“承包”使用这些原则。在以往的证据表明邮政规则可以解决有关验收合同争议的一种有效手段，但是，它已经表明，情况确实存在，邮政规则不适用，因此不构成每一个书面合同谈判后的一个必要组成部分。这就提出了问题，以保护受要约人的情况下，他或她已遵守所有合理的要求，要约人接受要约。鉴于现代社会的商业化和高度诉讼化的倾向，这也许需要在未来的决定或立法中加以解决。
澳洲作业代写:英国普通法
There are circumstances that exist in English common law where an offeror can ‘contract out’ of the application of the Postal rule, thus limiting or nullifying its effect on the communication of acceptance issue of the contract. For example, it was held in the case of Holwell Securities v Hughes[15] that the purpose of clause 2 of the contract in that case was to exclude the operation of the Postal rule. This was so even though the clause provided for notice in writing to be given, however it was the opinion of the court that this was to merely ascertain that a communication was required to the defendant, and posting of the letter was not necessary to constitute notice. This essentially ties in with the reasonableness argument, in the sense that it was not reasonable to assume that a reply would come by post, given that the party was only required to give notice in writing, and not post a letter of acceptance. What this example shows is that, while the Postal rule plays a fundamental role in cases where it has been held that it applies, it is not a necessary part of the formation of any contract by post. There are ways for parties to avoid using the Postal rule where the express or implied terms of the contract give leave to do so. This is further enhanced by the decision in Household Fire and Carriage Accident Insurance Co v Grant,[16] which also dealt with the ability of the offeror to displace the postal rule by way of ‘contracting around’ the use of such principles. The evidence in previous discussions have shown that the Postal rule can be an effective means of resolving a contractual dispute regarding acceptance, however it has been shown that cases do exist where the Postal rule does not apply, and hence does not form a necessary part of every written contract negotiated by post. This raises questions as to the protection of the offeree in situations where he or she has complied with all reasonable requests of the offeror in accepting the offer. Perhaps this needs to be addressed in future decisions or legislation, given the commercial and highly litigious tendencies that modern society has developed.