温斯顿与罗恩有业务关系，罗恩是一家当地的油漆制造商，每月购买两次，用于经营业务。目前的情况是，温斯顿要求罗恩赔偿使用罗恩油漆产品造成的损失。但是，罗恩的答复却拒绝接受索赔，因为一份通知清楚地表明，公司可以享受免责条款的保护。
如本案所示，收据和罗恩的标志上均显示了“罗恩对油漆造成的任何损失或损坏概不负责，无论可能造成多大的损失或损坏”。但温斯顿表示，他从未看过通知。本文着重分析了罗恩所述通知中的词语是否具有排除条款所规定的合同效力。如果是这样，罗恩将不负责收费，温斯顿将受到收据和签名上文字的约束。
The Case Analysis on the Basis of Understanding the Australian Contract Law
This paper gives legal explanations on the basis of Australian Contract Law to work out a solution to deal with issues within the case.
Winston has a business relationship with Ron which is a local paint manufacturer to purchase twice a month for the purpose of operating businesses. The current situation is that Winston has required the compensation from Ron for making up for losses caused by using painting products of Ron. However, replies made by Ron have refused to accept the claim due to a notice has clearly shown that the company can enjoy the protection of exclusion clauses.
As contents shown within the case, a statement of “Ron is not liable for any loss or damage caused by the paint, regardless of how much loss or damage may be caused” has been displayed on both the receipt and the sign of Ron’s. But Winston expressed that he has never read the notice. The paper focuses on analyzing whether words within the notice that stated by Ron will have the contractual effect to be protected under the exclusion clauses. If so, Ron will not be responsible for charges and Winston will be bound by words on the receipt and the sign.
澳洲Law assignment 代写:澳大利亚合同法的案例分析
综上所述，本案中的两种不同情况表明，罗恩可以受到保护，理解排除条款，拒绝支付温斯顿收取的赔偿金。必须了解合同法中有关排除条款的细节，以便作出正确的法律决定，保障当事人的权利。第一种情形解释了当事人未签订合同时的情形，以及如何处理案件中的举证问题，在收据和罗恩的签字内证明文字将有效地保护其利益。第二种情况解释了另一种情况，即温斯顿清楚地理解了这些词的含义。在这种情况下，罗恩的利益仍然需要得到保护。
In conclusion, two different situations within this case have indicated that Ron can be protected understand exclusion clauses to refuse to pay for the compensation charged by Winston. It is essential to understand details about exclusion clauses within the contract laws so that correct legal determinations can be made to guarantee the rights of the parties. The first situation explained the situation when business parties have not signed a contract and how to deal with the issue of the case to prove words within the receipt and the sign of Ron will be effective to protect its benefits. The second situation has explained an opposite situation that Winston has clearly understood the meaning of those words. In such scenario, benefits of Ron still need to be given the protection.
澳洲Law assignment 代写:澳大利亚合同法的案例分析
