加拿大法学论文代写：法律合同
加拿大法学论文代写：法律合同
法律适用：另外的消息，是维姬留下的关于AJAX的答录机只能被视为是对要约有仍然是一个有效的要约，可能已被维姬。如果没有这样的提议，维姬就不能接受。作为一个结果，剩下的信息维姬对AJAX的答录机只能被视为一个新的报价购买宝马车11000。法律规定，为了建立有效的合同，必须有一个必须接受的要约。然而，在目前的情况下，需要注意的是，虽然通过AJAX不能发布广告被视为要约，因为它是要约邀请，维姬没有接受提议由她AJAX在电话。同时，在这次谈话中，维姬没有做出任何提供AJAX。她只是说她想有更多的时间思考。如上所述，还盘的结果是原始报价被销毁。因此，在目前的情况下，也没有任何要约可以被维姬接受。同时，由于含有部分维姬的接受没有收到Ajaz的短信，接受不能被视为已向AJAX。
结论：由于上述讨论，可以在目前的情况下，说有维姬和AJAX之间没有有效的合同。原因是没有任何礼物可以被维姬接受。同时，还需要注意的是，在即时通信情况下，接受邮政规则是不适用的。另一方面，法律契约要求，为了创造一个有效的合同，应该有一个以另一方同样的方式接受的要约。这些要求是不是在目前的情况下实现的，有维姬和AJAX之间没有合同。
加拿大法学论文代写：法律合同
Application of Law: Moreover the message that was left by Vicky on the answering machine of Ajaz can only be considered as an acceptance of the offer is there is still a valid offer present which could have been accepted by Vicky. If no such offer is present, Vicky cannot accept. As a result, the message left by Vicky on the answering machine of Ajaz can only be considered as a fresh offer to purchase the BMW car for 11,000. The law requires that there should be an offer that has to be accepted for the purpose of creating a valid contract. However in the present case it needs to be noted that while the advertisement issued by Ajaz cannot be considered as an offer because it was an invitation to treat, Vicky has not accepted the offer during the phone call made by her to Ajaz. At the same time, during this conversation, Vicky had not made any offer to Ajaz. She merely stated that she wanted more time to think. As mentioned above, the result of making a counter-offer is that the original offer is destroyed. As a result in the present case also, there is no offer present that could have been accepted by Vicky. At the same time, due to the fact that the message containing acceptance on part of Vicky was not received by Ajaz, acceptance cannot be considered as having been conveyed to Ajaz.
Conclusion: As a result of the above mentioned discussion, it can be said in the present case that there is no valid contract between Vicky and Ajaz. The reason is that there was no offer present that could have been accepted by Vicky. At the same time, it also needs to be noted that the postal rule of acceptance is not applicable in case of instantaneous communications. On the other hand, the law contract requires that for creating a valid contract, there should be an offer which should be accepted in the same way by the other party. As these requirements were not fulfilled in the present case, there is no contract between Vicky and Ajaz.
