Ask a question about contract law, general content

A has not breached the contract.

Because Party A and Party B have not yet reached an agreement and have not signed a contract.

A makes an offer, B does not accept. Only when B promises to buy a yacht for $5,000 does it constitute a commitment. B is only willing to pay 3,500 yuan, which does not constitute a commitment, the two parties have not reached an agreement, and have not signed a sales contract, and it is legal for A to give the yacht ** to C, and it does not constitute a breach of contract for B.

If B wants to sue A, he will not win the case and A should not pay attention to B's actions.

B wrote a letter proposing to buy the speedboat for 3500 **, which was a new offer, and the other party did not promise it, and the contract was not established. Therefore, Party A does not constitute a breach of contract and is not liable. Party A doesn't have to do anything.

A did not breach the contract because there was no contract between A and B. A advertised his speedboat in the newspaper and marked it at a price of $5,000 because A sent an invitation to make an offer, and B wrote to A expressing his willingness to buy the speedboat for $3,500, and it was B who made an offer to A, but A did not respond, and A did not make a commitment to B's offer, so there was no contract between A and B, because the contract was formed when the promise reached the offeror. Since there is no contract between A and B, how can A breach of contract?

(1) Company B is not liable because Company B's act on May 25 is a new offer, and Company A has also committed at the same time.

2) The guarantee is a deposit guarantee and does not exceed the scope permitted by law. Company A can choose double penalties or liquidated damages, but can only choose one of them.

3) Party B.

4) Valid offers and commitments have been fulfilled.

5) Party B is liable to Party A, and then Party B is recovering from C.

According to the provisions of Articles 35, 43 and 44 of the Electricity Law, you can completely request amendments. Articles 35, 43 and 44 of the Electricity Law are as follows:

Article 35 The term "electricity price" as used in this Law refers to the feed-in tariff of electric power production enterprises, the price of mutual power supply between power grids, and the price of electricity sold by power grid。 Electricity prices are subject to a unified policy, a unified pricing principle, and hierarchical management.

Article 43 No unit may set electricity prices beyond the authority of electricity price management。 Power supply enterprises shall not change the electricity price without authorization。

Article 44 No unit or individual shall be allowed to add other charges to the electricity bill; However, where laws and administrative regulations provide otherwise, follow those provisions. If the local fund-raising and electricity charges are added to the electricity bill, the people of the provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government shall formulate measures in accordance with the relevant regulations. Power supply enterprises are prohibited from collecting other fees when collecting electricity charges。

(1) B shall not be liable for contractual negligence. Because B has not violated the principle of good faith. A and B did not require that the goods must be produced by B at the time of entering into the contract.

2) The guarantee method adopted in the contract is the deposit, which is legal and valid. Because the deposit does not exceed 20% of the total amount of the contract.

3) The breaching party of the contract is Party B, although he claims that the quality of the goods is the responsibility of the transporter, but the contract is relative, the two parties to the commodity purchase contract are A and B, the subject matter of the contract is unqualified, and the liability for breach of contract is of course in the provider that is Party B. If it is indeed the misconduct of the transporter, B can claim compensation for his contract with the transporter.

4) In this case, although the supply and marketing section chief exceeded his authority in purchasing the quantity, which was a revocable civil act, "Company B confirmed the quantity, ** and time of supply to Company A by fax on May 25, and the legal representative of Company A recognized it by fax." In other words, Company A's retrospective recognition made the ultra vires act effective.

5) Company A may request B to return double the deposit or bear the liability for liquidated damages, choose one of the two. B may claim rights against C in respect of the contract between him and C.

Go to a law firm to draft one.

Measures for the Administration of Second-hand Car Circulation Article 23 The following vehicles are prohibited from being distributed, sold, auctioned and brokered:

1) Vehicles that have been scrapped or have reached the national compulsory scrapping standards;

2) During the mortgage period or without the approval of the customs, the transaction of the sea demolition and clear customs supervision vehicles;

3) Vehicles that are sealed or seized in accordance with law by the people's courts, people's procuratorates, or administrative law enforcement departments;

4) Vehicles obtained through theft, robbery, fraud, or other illegal or criminal means;

5) The engine number, vehicle identification number or frame number does not match the registration number, or there are signs of chiseling;

6) Smuggled or illegally assembled (assembled) vehicles;

7) Vehicles that do not have the certificates and vouchers listed in Article 22;

H) outside the administrative jurisdiction of the public security organs traffic management departments registered vehicles;

9) Vehicles prohibited by national laws and administrative regulations.

Where second-hand car trading market operators and second-hand car business entities discover that vehicles have any of the circumstances in (4), (5), or (6), they shall promptly report to the public security organs, administrative departments for industry and commerce, and other law enforcement organs.

For the transaction of illegal vehicles, the second-hand car trading market operator and the second-hand car business entity shall bear joint and several liability for compensation and other corresponding legal liabilities.

Therefore, the court's decision is correct.