论文代写：建筑合同
在澳大利亚，建筑合同受《2004年建筑合同法》的管辖，根据该法，合同双方都有义务按照合同约定履行其承诺。此外，双方都必须遵守合同协议中规定的条款和条件。根据《2004年建筑合同法》第7节，该法案在该法案实施后被用于建筑合同。本合同在合同成立时适用于施工合同，可以口头订立合同或书面合同。除此之外，还可以部分写作，部分口头约定。该法案可以被强制执行，不论其所在的地方和当事人是否签订了合同，或不考虑在2004年《建筑合同法》中表达自己意见的各方。
论文代写：建筑合同
在这种情况下，克拉拉和约瑟夫都与马歇尔和爱德华签订了合同。然而，与马歇尔的合同被约瑟夫终止，因为他的表现不佳。根据澳大利亚合同法的一般规则，如果合同规定的履行不能作为双方履行合同条款和条件的义务，则合同可以被取消。因此，由于马歇尔无法按照要求执行，克拉拉和约瑟夫可以解除合同，在这种情况下，他们不要求服从他们的义务的预先规定的部分。然而，马歇尔提出了一个条款“供应商不承担任何工艺缺陷的责任”。马歇尔通过电子邮件发送了所需的报价。然而，由于他在工作上的疏忽，他仍然必须被解雇。爱德华可以根据报价和考虑提供报价，因为他提供的报价是最低的，他应该有权得到这份工作。
论文代写：建筑合同
In Australia, the construction contracts are governed by the Construction Contract Act 2004, and according to the Act, both the contractual parties are obligated for acting as per their promise in their contractual agreement. Moreover, both parties are compelled to abide by the terms and condition defined in the contractual agreement. According to Construction Contract Act 2004 Sect. 7, this Act is used in a construction contract after this particular Act move towards operation. This specific Construction Contract Act 2004 applies to the construction contract when the contract is formed and it can be orally formed contract or written contract. Besides this, it can be partly written and partly oral contract. The Act can be imposed irrespective of place and the parties entered into the contract or irrespective of the parties that express their opinion to be governed by the Construction Contract Act 2004.
论文代写：建筑合同
In this case, both Clara and Joseph made a contract with both parties Marshall and Edward. However, the contract with Marshall was terminated by Joseph on the ground of bad performance. As per the general rule in Australian contract law, a contract can be annulled if the required performance did not obtain as both the parties obligated to perform as per the terms and condition of the contract. Therefore, as Marshal was unable to perform as per the requirement, Clara and Joseph can terminate the contract, and in this condition, they do not oblige to obey the predefined part of their obligation. However, Marshal put a clause “Provider accepts no responsibility for defects in workmanship”. Marshall emailed the quote as required. However, still he must be terminated for his negligence in work. Edward can case according to the offer and consideration as he offers the lowest quotation and he should be entitled to the job.
