英国论文听证会:违反合同

17 6月 英国论文听证会:违反合同

英国论文听证会:违反合同

李没有权利控告哈利。因为在报价的时候,已经明确提到如果李不在规定的时间内购买土地,Harry可以终止合同。李对合同中的每一个条件都很熟悉;因此,哈利没有责任向李支付因合同终止而造成的任何损失。另外,Harry也通知了Lee关于在合理期限内终止合同的事情。考虑到有效要约的实质,要约人有权在要约时加入任何条件。如果受要约人不遵守这些条件,要约人有权终止合同而不受任何法律影响。除此之外,给定的场景还提到,通过及时要求延长合同期限,李实际上是通过哈利的律师向哈利提出了报价。哈利没有对李提出的延长时间的建议作出回应。
因此,我们清楚地了解到harry没有接受延期,并且仍然保留到期后终止合同的权利。就有效合同的要件而言,如果受法律合同约束的一方不履行其承诺或在合同成立时强加的任何条件,则为违约。无辜的一方因违反合同而遭受损失的,有权要求赔偿。此外,法律合同的当事人之间有必要直接沟通要约和承诺。关于要约和承诺的间接沟通不会产生具有约束力的合同。类似的情况还有,李通过他的律师向哈利提出延长合同期限的要求。因此,哈里的律师所作的陈述并不等于禁止反悔,哈里的合同终止也不意味着他要对李负责。

英国论文听证会:违反合同

Lee has no right to file any case against Harry. It is because at the time of making an offer, it has clearly mentioned that Harry can terminate the contract if Lee does not purchase land within a specified time. Lee was familiar about every condition made in the contract; hence, Harry is not liable to pay to Lee for any damages caused due to termination of the contract. In addition, Harry has also informed Lee regarding the termination of the contract within reasonable period. Considering the essentials of a valid offer, an offeror has a right to incorporate any condition at the time of making an offer. If an offeree fails to abide by those conditions then offeror has a right to terminate the contract without suffering any legal implications. Besides this, the given scenario also mentioned that by asking extension in time for a contract Lee is actually making an offer to harry through Harry’s solicitor. Harry did not respond to the offer for time extension made by Lee.
Thus, it has clearly understood that harry did not accept time extension and still keep the right to terminate the contract after due date has passed. Considering the essentials of a valid contract, if either of a party bound to a legal contract fails to perform their promise or any condition that has imposed at the time of formation of contract, than a contract breaches. The party that is innocent and suffers loss due to breach of contract has a right for claiming compensation. Moreover, it is necessary for parties that are bound to a legal contract to communicate both offer and acceptance directly to each other. Indirect communication regarding offer and acceptance will not result in a binding contract. Similar is the case when Lee asks for time extension in the contract to Harry through his lawyer. Therefore, representation made by Harry’s solicitor does not amount to promissory estoppel, and termination of contract by Harry does not make him answerable to Lee.