个人陈述模板：公司法案
个人陈述模板：公司法案
在谈到Crane Entertainment对Gabe的承诺时，有几点需要提到。他们答应给他6万美元，这是在规定的时间内为同一家公司开发游戏的必要条件。必须明白，合同不仅是书面的，而且可以是口头的。当以上讨论的所有内容都出现在给定的合同中时，即使没有以书面形式出现，也被称为有效合同。Gabe的情况也一样，应该获得额外的$60,000。Crane Entertainment承诺支付这笔钱，这也是Gabe继续开发游戏并从他的信用卡中提取相同金额的原因，他希望能够从Crane Entertainment中获得补偿。因此，从合同的角度来看，Crane Entertainment应该为它承诺给Gabe的额外$60,000负责。同时，其他成文法也可以考虑。
根据《竞争与消费者法》第4节，“如果一个人就未来的任何事项作出陈述，而该人没有合理的理由作出陈述，则该陈述将被视为具有误导性”(Carter, 2012)。2000年《消费者保护法》第18条规定，任何人不得从事贸易或商业活动。从事误导、欺骗或者可能误导、欺骗的商品或者服务的行为。1987年《公平交易法》(SA)第56条也支持这一观点(Ellinghaus, 2007)。需要理解的是，当Crane Entertainment拒绝支付上述金额时，这也可以被称为欺诈。如果不是这样，这是一个误导的声明，他们让盖比把他的个人钱花在应该为他们完成的工作。同样根据普通法，这包含了不公平的行为，特别是当Gabe开发的游戏被Crane Entertainment用于赚取可观的金额时。因此，加布有权得到额外的钱，这是承诺给他的起重机娱乐。
个人陈述模板：公司法案
There are a number of points which need to be mentioned when talking about the promise which Crane Entertainment had made to Gabe. They had promised him a sum of $60,000 which was an essential requirement for developing the games for the same company within the stipulated time period. It has to be understood that contracts are not only written in nature but can also be verbal in nature. When all the elements which have been discussed above are present in the given contract, it is said to be a valid contract even if it is not in a written form. The case of Gabe deserving additional $60,000 is the same. Crane Entertainment had promised to pay the said amount and that was the reason why Gabe went ahead with developing the games and had drawn the same amount from his credit card in the hope of getting a reimbursement from Crane Entertainment. Thus from contractual point of view, Crane Entertainment is liable for the additional $60,000 dollars that it has promised Gabe.At the same time, other statutory laws can also be taken into consideration.
According to Section 4 of the Competition and Consumer Act, “if a person makes a representation with respect to any future matter and the person does not have reasonable grounds for making the representation, the representation is taken to be misleading”(Carter, 2012). This is supported by section 18 of the CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 2000 which states that a person shall not, in trade or commerce.Engage in conduct about goods or services that is misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive. This is also supported by Section 56 of Fair Trading Act 1987 (SA) (Ellinghaus, 2007). It needs to be understood that this can also be called a case of fraud when Crane Entertainment would refuse to pay the said amount. If it is not that, it is a misleading statement by them which made Gabe spends his personal money on the work that was supposed to get completed for them. Also under Common Law, this encloses unfair conduct especially when the games developed by Gabe were used by Crane Entertainment to earn handsome amounts. Thus Gabe is entitled to the additional money which had been promised to him by Crane Entertainment.
