澳洲论文代写：法院的裁决

澳洲论文代写：法院的裁决
原告的要求被拒绝。这些案件的交易表明它们是确凿的，只需要确定确定性和完整性等基本要素。法院裁定，原告辩论和证据表明他们在合同会议之后与被告进行了沟通，这是不能接受的。这个报价也仅仅是针对现在的BISG经销商而提出的，因此这个报价对于前BISG经销商来说是不可扩展的。对于这样的扩展应该有一些应该解决的问题，这些问题还没有解决。法官认为，“原告未能确定1998年2月被告在会议上提出的单方面合同的存在，并被原告采购客户与CFA签订租赁协议所接受。因此，原告的要求应该被驳回“，第[193]段。法院还决定，由于法官不满意任何未来的问题 – 原告已退回机器，因此被告的禁止性或宣告性救济的反诉也应予以拒绝。

澳洲论文代写：法院的裁决
Plaintiff的索赔。
案件中的原告称，被告的代表已经提出合同要约出售佳能复印机，除了两种型号的复印机在一个特定的经销商区域内的企业为一美元时，他们的租赁协议，业务到期或终止。原告指出，他们接受了这个要约，因此签订了单边合同。原告现在声称，被告违反了合同，因为他们继续这个提议的业务经销权被关闭，因此他们拒绝在协议结束时向复印机出售一元的复印机。

澳洲论文代写：法院的裁决
The plaintiff’s claim was denied. The dealings in the cases showed that they were conclusive and it was only necessary to establish essential elements such as certainty and completeness. The Court decided that the plaintiff argument and evidence that they were communicating with the defendant after the conference on a contract basis was not admissible. The offer was also decidedly made only to current BISG dealers and as such the offer made was not extensible to former BISG dealers. There are some considerations which should have been resolved for such an extension and these were not resolved. The Judge held that in his opinion “plaintiff has failed to establish the existence of a unilateral contract constituted by the defendant’s offer made at the conference in February 1998 and accepted by the plaintiff’s procurement of its customers’ entry into rental agreements with CFA. It follows that the plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed” para [ 193]. The Court also decided that the counterclaims of the defendant for injunctive or declaratory relief should also be denied as the Judge was not satisfied of an existing of any future issue-the machines had been returned by the plaintiff.

澳洲论文代写：法院的裁决
Plaintiff’s Claim.
The plaintiff in the case claimed that the representatives of the defendant had made a contractual offer to sell Canon photocopiers excepting two models to businesses within a specific dealer area for a dollar when their rental agreement with a business expired or was terminated. The plaintiff stated that they accepted the offer and hence entered a unilateral contract. The plaintiff now claims that the defendant breached the contract because their business dealership through which they continued this offer was closed and hence they had refused to sell plaintiff the copiers for a dollar at the end of the agreement.