美国代写作业：合同条款案件
这是双方的期望以及双方就禁止反言发生的事件所作的假设的性质。在这个案例中，很明显Martina是基于口头协议做出假设的。在这一条款中考虑的下一个因素是诱导。在法律效力诉哈特利案中，很明显，所作的承诺必须对合同中涉及的所有各方都是清楚和明确的。在这些问题上，玛蒂娜的立场模糊不清。很明显她被误导了。在这种情况下，拥有高级知识的一方需要努力让玛蒂娜明白条款。她不同意合同的原始条款，她认为隐含条款可以在合同法的实施中发挥重要作用。信赖是指承诺必须采取或不采取依赖于假设的行动。在这种情况下，不清楚被承诺人的行为是根据情况的合理性质而采取的。知识是在这个概念中作出的假设。这是根据案件很容易推断出来的。
美国代写作业：合同条款案件
玛蒂娜指出，有关条款的证据和知识是基于协议的隐含合同条款。损害是指原告作出的假设没有实现的条款。损害和假定之间的联系需要在当事各方之间清楚地作出。在普通法的情况下，禁止可以作为其他行为的原因，也可以作为保护不公平或不合理的合同条款。衡平法上的禁止反言是由Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd诉Maher案确定的。Combe v Combe [1951] 2kb 215上诉法院的案例表明，这些禁止反悔可以用来理解这些禁止反悔在不合理行为案件中需要考虑某些因素的方式。在这个范式中需要考虑当事人订立合同的知识因素。布里奇沃特诉莱希案(1998)194 CLR 437展示了如何实施法律以及法院如何决定人们的行为过程。
美国代写作业：合同条款案件
It is the expectation of both the parties and the nature of the assumption of the parties in relation to the event where the estoppel that arises. In this case, it is evident that there is assumption made by Martina based on the verbal agreement. The next factors that is considered in this clause if the inducement. In the Legione v Hateley, case it is evident that the promise that is made must be clear and unequivocal to all the parties who are involved in the contract. Martina was given a nebulous stand about the issues. It is evident that she was misled. The party with the superior knowledge in this case the company needs to have taken the effort to make Martina clear on the terms. She did not agree to the original terms of the contract, she assumed that the implied terms can play an important role in the implementation of the contract law. The reliance is when the promise must act or refrain from acting on the reliance on the assumption. It is not clear in this case the promisee’s action was taken based on the reasonable nature of the circumstances. The knowledge is the assumption that is made in this notion. This is the easily inferred upon cases.
美国代写作业：合同条款案件
Martina states that the evidence and knowledge of the terms was based on the implied contractual terms of the agreement. The detriment is the clause when the assumption that is made by the plaintiff is not fulfilled. The link between the detriment and the assumption needs to have been made clearly between the parties. In the case of common law estopped can be used as a causative for other actions and also as a shield against unfair or unconscionable contractual terms. This estoppel in the case of equitable estoppel is determined from the case of Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher. The case of Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215 Court of Appeal shows that these estoppels can be used to understand about the ways in which these estoppel In the case of the unconscionable conduct certain factors needs to be considered. The factors of knowledge of the parties entering into the contract needs to be considered in this paradigm. Bridgewater v Leahy (1998) 194 CLR 437 shows how the laws can be implemented and how the courts determine the course of the conduct of the people.
