代写:社会案例分析

代写:社会案例分析

在Sally和Bob的例子中,他们需要一台拖拉机来喷洒杂草,因为他们买了一个农场。他们买了一台中等大小的拖拉机,根据销售人员是机械供应商的事实。在这种情况下,当一方提出虚假陈述,导致一方当事人被诱导进入合同时,就存在着虚假陈述的问题。根据鲍勃和莎莉的说法,这台拖拉机不够结实,销售人员提出的索赔要求是错误的。买者自负是指“让买者当心”,买者必须满足自己的需要,即该房产符合自己的需要(Poole, 2016, p.20)。存在对重要事实的错误陈述,导致当事人签订合同(Butler et al., 2013, p. 54)。这事发生在萨莉和鲍勃身上。如销售人员所说,如果他们购买拖拉机,他们的要求将得到满足。当事人对事实陈述错误的,可以要求赔偿损失。根据合同法,他们可以要求损害赔偿。根据《2012年澳大利亚消费者法与公平交易法》的规定,鲍勃和萨莉在受到投诉时将获得赔偿(迪金和莫里斯,2012年,第103页)。

代写:社会案例分析

在这个案例中,一个叫Nadia的人把一辆车停在电影院外面。汽车前面有个牌子,但她没有看。然而,当她回来的时候,她发现她的车窗被损坏了,她的ipod和导航器也丢失了。根据2010年《个人财产证券法》,个人对其财产负有单独责任。娜迪娅在这件事上疏忽了,因为她应该在把车停在剧院外面之前阅读一下停车条件。有人清楚地提到,没有人对汽车可能发生的任何损坏负责。停车标志是用小字体写的,看不清楚,如果她能正确地看清楚,她就能决定是否停车。她不应该把贵重物品留在车里,因为没人有责任照顾这些东西。然而,她可以抱怨丢失的iphone和附近警察局的导航仪,也可以抱怨停车场主人贴的牌子,从远处看是无法读懂的。

代写:社会案例分析

In this case of Sally and Bob, they require a tractor for weed-spraying as they have bought a farm. They bought a medium sized tractor based on the facts stated by the salesperson who is a machinery supplier. As is seen in this case, there is the issue of misrepresentation when one party refers a false statement and as a result the party is induced into the contract. As per Bob and Sally, the tractor is not strong enough and the claims made by the salesperson are false.Caveat emptor refers to ‘let the buyer beware’ and it is on the part of the buyer to satisfy oneself that the property is suitable as per their needs (Poole, 2016, p.20). There has been a misrepresentation of material facts and it have led to the party to enter into the contract (Butler et al., 2013, p. 54). This has happened for Sally and Bob. The buyer have been convinced that their requirement will be met if they purchase the tractor as mentioned by the salesperson. In the event of misrepresentation of facts, the parties can claim damages. According to contract law, they can claim damages. According to Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012, Bob and Sally will get compensation in case of complaint laid (Deakin and Morris, 2012, p.103).

代写:社会案例分析
In this case a person named Nadia had parked a car outside a movie theatre. There was a sign in front of the car but she has not read it. However, when she returned she found that the window of her car has been damaged and she had lost her ipod and navigator. According to Personal Property Securities Act, 2010, an individual has the sole responsibility of his /her belongings. Nadia has been negligent in this case as she should have read the conditions of parking before parking the car outside of the theatre. It was clearly mentioned that no one is responsible for any damage that might happen to the car. The parking sign was written in small letters and could not be read properly and if she could have read the sign properly then she could have decided on whether to park the car or not. She should not have left her valuables in the car since it was nobody’s responsibility to take care of those things. However, she can complain about the missing iphone and navigator to the nearby police station and she can complain about the sign board that the carpark owners have put up which is not readable from a distance.