澳洲法律论文代写格里菲斯大学：商业和就业法

西蒙做了一个广告，要求出售JRR托尔克伦签署的第一版指环王。费尔南多通过向西蒙张贴支票和邮寄费用来接受报价。另一方面，阿里通过电子邮件向西蒙传达了信息，并接受了该报价，并向西蒙公布了商定金额的支票。 然而，西蒙把这本书卖给了除费尔南多和阿里之外的第三方。 因此，法律问题在于西蒙是否对费尔南多和阿里早于最终获得该书的第三方接受提议承担任何合同责任。

Simon made an advertisement with an offer to sell the first edition of the Lord of Rings signed by JRR Tolklen. Fernando accepted the offer by posting the cheque for the book along with postal fees to Simon. On the other hand, Ali reached Simon through email and accepted the offer and also posted the cheque of agreed amount to Simon. However, Simon sold the book to a third party apart from Fernando and Ali. Therefore, the legal issue is whether Simon has any contractual liability to Fernando and Ali who had accepted the offer earlier than the third party that eventually got the book.

澳洲法律论文代写格里菲斯大学：商业和就业法

本案的法律问题是基于费尔南多或阿里对西蒙提出的要约的接受。上述情况适用的法律规则是合同受理部分的邮政规则。 “邮政规则”规定，一旦根据参考Adam v Lindsel（1818）案件的要约提供的条款发布了要约，则接受要约。合同的接受合同约定了要约人和受让人对合同的约束。接受要约表明受要约人已接受要约人提出的条款和条件，因此已达成协议。

The legal issue of this case is based on the acceptance of the offer made by Simon by either Fernando or Ali. The legal rule that is in application in the above mentioned case is the Postal Rule under the contract acceptance section. The Postal Rule states that an acceptance to an offer is made once it is posted based on the terms provided by the offerror in reference to Adam v Lindsel (1818) case. The acceptance of a contract legally binds the offeror and offeree to a contractual agreement. The acceptance of the offer is an indication that the offeree has accepted the terms and conditions put in place by the offeror and, therefore, an agreement has been reached.

澳洲法律论文代写格里菲斯大学：商业和就业法

在费尔南多和阿里的情况下，邮政规则正在实施中。 在这种情况下，费尔南多是第一个接受这一要约的人，与西蒙签订了合同协议。 因此，根据协议，西蒙将费尔南多寄给了这本书，其中包括费尔南多在支付报价时已经包含了该书的邮费。 尽管费尔南多没有通过任何其他沟通方式与西蒙联系，并通知他接受要约，但事实证明，他已根据邮政规则向西蒙公布了要约。 因此，基于这一行动，西蒙与费尔南多签订了一份合同，向他提供他购买的这本书。 然而，西蒙并没有把这本书交给费尔南多，这是违反合同，西蒙承担合同责任。 因此，就费尔南多而言，西蒙有合同责任，可以根据双方的协议解散。

In the case of Fernando and Ali, the postal rule is in application. Fernando who in this case was the first to accept the offer, entered into a contract agreement with Simon. Therefore, based on the agreement, Simon was to send Fernando the book and this was included on the fact that Fernando had included postal fees for the book when making the payment for the offer. Despite the fact that Fernando did not reach out to Simon through any other method of communication and inform him of the acceptance of the offer, this was confirmed by the fact that he had posted the offer to Simon in accordance to the Postal Rule. Therefore, based on this action, Simon had entered into a contract with Fernando to deliver him the book he had purchased. However, Simon does not deliver the book to Fernando and this was a breach of the contract and Simon is contractual liable. Therefore, in regard to Fernando, Simon has a contractual liability that may be dissolved based on the agreement of the two parties.

澳洲法律论文代写格里菲斯大学：商业和就业法

另一方面，阿里对西蒙提出的要约感兴趣，但提出了西蒙拒绝的还价。在提议谈判的过程中，西蒙和阿里正在通过电子邮件进行沟通。在给阿里的最后一封电子邮件中，西蒙重申了他之前的报价，并规定了阿里的时间限制，在该时限内报价将过期。后来，阿里接受了这个提议，并发送了一封电子邮件给西蒙，他从来没有读过它。在接受要约时，即时通信被认为表示接受要约，因此就Brinkibon Ltd诉Stahag Stahl（1983）案达成一致。然而，唯一的问题是，电子邮件不被视为基于2002年电子商务条例的即时通信形式。因此，西蒙没有收到电子邮件的事实使得合同无效，因为他没有确认接受来自阿里。另一方面，他提供给阿里的期限已经过期，因此也就拉姆斯盖特维多利亚酒店v蒙特菲奥雷（1866年）案而言无效。因此，在阿里张贴支票的时候，他没有与西蒙达成协议，而且西蒙只能提供一个信息，就是他提出了对阿里的要约的提议，并给了他一段时间来接受提议他没有这样做。因此，根据这些信息，可以商定，西蒙与阿里之间的协议已经失效，西蒙没有收到阿里提供的确认，并且他已经提供给阿里的时限已经过去。因此，Simon不负责他与阿里之间的联系违规。

Ali on the other hand, got interested on the offer made by Simon but made a counter offer which Simon rejected. In the process of negotiation on the offer, Simon and Ali were communicating through emails. In the last email to Ali, Simon had restated his earlier offer and gave a time limit to Ali on which the offer would expire. Later, Ali accepted the offer and sent an email to Simon who never got to read it. In the acceptance of an offer, instantaneous communications are considered to signify acceptance of the offer hence agreement reached in reference to Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl (1983) case. However, the only problem is that, emails are not considered as a form of instantaneous communication based on the Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002. The fact that Simon did not receive the email, therefore, makes the contract void as he did not confirm the acceptance from Ali. On the other hand, the time limit he had offered Ali had expired and so that made the contract void too in reference to Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore (1866) case. Therefore, by the time Ali was posting the cheque for the book, he had no agreement with Simon, and the only information Simon had, was that he made a counter offer to Ali’s offer and gave him a time period to accept the offer of which he did not do so. So based on this information, it can be agreed that the agreement between Simon and Ali had become void with Simon not receiving the confirmation of the offer from Ali and the time limit he had provided to Ali had elapsed. Therefore, Simon is not liable for contact breach between him and Ali.