康奈尔Essay代写:限制的邮政规则

2017-04-23 00:17

这种限制的邮政规则确实有一些相似之处，上述讨论的位移限制。然而，相对于默示合同中的“邮政契约”的使用，当事人可以在合同中明示条款的基础上避免使用规则。领先的一般权力这一原则是Holwell证券有限公司v休斯的情况下，[ 17 ]，提出邮政规则不适用于它创造了“明显的不便和荒诞”。显然，迫使邮政规则的合同，他们显然不适用，如合同的电子邮件或传真传输中使用的谈判将创造这样的荒谬，因此，休斯的情况下，建议它不适用于这些情况下。其他情况下，在这方面的应用，以加强和专业的原则，奠定了在休斯。最值得注意的是，对纯度V霍夫曼& Co的要求是'后'返回给定的验收，被认为是“电报或口头的信息，或以任何方式不迟写的一封信，寄回邮”。[ 18 ]如果在这种情况下，受要约人选择了回复回复，然后邮政规则将应用；然而在通信接受由其他事件的邮政规则的执行，更快的手段将创造一个“荒诞”，休斯案中明确禁止在普通法。在Tinn的情况下，Honeyman J的观点后来被教育V商业和一般投资有限公司在曼彻斯特教区委员会的Buckley J的肯定，在那里举行，要约可以视为接受在受要约人不遵守规定的承诺方式，但使用这种方法在任何一方没有更多的不利要比使用规定的方法。[ 19 ]这对邮政规则的使用因为它给受要约人为了避免受到他们用另一种形式的沟通，比通过邮局寄信快的能力（例如，电子邮件）。它进一步表明，现代社会倾向于不要求邮政规则尽可能多的时候，邮政是一种主要的沟通方式，这是当邮政规则介绍。邮政规则似乎并没有迎合过去几十年所看到的更先进的技术进步，因此更进一步强调了邮政规则是过时的学说，需要进行一些彻底的改革才能再次生效。
康奈尔Essay代写:限制的邮政规则
This limitation of the Postal rule does draw some similarities to the displacement limitation discussed above. However, rather than ‘contracting around’ the use of the Postal rule on implied terms, there are ways which a party can avoid the use of the rule on the basis of express terms included in the contract. The leading general authority on such a principle is the case of Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes,[17] where it was suggested the Postal rule should not apply where it created “manifest inconvenience and absurdity”. Obviously, forcing the Postal rules upon a contract where they would clearly not apply, such as a contract where email or fax transmissions are used in the negotiations would create such absurdity, and hence the Hughes case recommends it not be applied in these circumstances. Other cases are used in this area to reinforce and specialise the principle laid down in Hughes. Most notably, the case of Tinn v Hoffman & Co asked for acceptance to be given by ‘return of post’, which was held to mean “telegram or by verbal message, or by any means not later than a letter written and sent by return of post”.[18] Obviously if the offeree in this case had chosen to reply by return of post, then Postal rules would have applied; however the enforcement of Postal rules in the event of a communication of acceptance by other, quicker means would create an ‘absurdity’ which the Hughes case expressly prohibits at common law. The view of Honeyman J in the Tinn case was later affirmed by Buckley J in Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General Investments Ltd, where it was held that an offer may be deemed to be accepted where the offeree does not adhere to the prescribed method of acceptance, provided that the use of such a method in no more disadvantageous to either party than it would be to use the prescribed method.[19] This impacts on the use of the postal rules because of the fact that it gives the offeree the ability to avoid being subject to them by using an alternative form of communication that is quicker than sending a letter by post (for example, email). It further shows that modern society is leaning towards not requiring the Postal rule as much as in times where post was a primary method of communication, which is when the Postal rule is introduced. The Postal rule appears not to cater for the more modern advances in technology that the last few decades have seen, and hence adds further weight to the argument that the Postal rule is an outdated doctrine, in need of some serious overhaul in order to be effective once more.