新西兰奥克兰理工大学论文代写：商法
问题：本案中的问题是，如果双方当事人可以考虑，当西蒙发布了包含接受要约的信件，如果邮政承兑规则适用于本案时，法律可强制执行的合同已经订立。
规则：法律上可执行的合同的主要要求是双方之间应该有一个协议，通常由要约和接受，同时，应该有一个会议的头脑各方。在这方面，接受可以被描述为一个明确的声明由党作出的要约。法律还规定，为了有效，一方的接受必须传达给另一方。因此，在这方面，只有一个精神决定，要约已被接受是不够的。根据一般规则，合同被认为是当验收被传达给缔约方作出要约。在通信瞬时模式案例，认为验收时接到党接受提供给要约人。然而当后已被各方用来沟通的承诺，有一个特殊的规则，被称为接受邮政规则（亚当斯V素，1818）。根据这一规则，当邮件已经拟由当事人作为沟通接受报价的方式，接受发生在含有接受已寄出的信（布雷桑V的随从，1974）。
应用：在上述讨论的基础上，可以说，虽然邮政规则规定，它被认为是接受方收到的书面时，载有接受的信已张贴。然而在这方面，它也要求后应该由当事人被作为沟通的手段接受沉思。在这种情况下，李察已经清楚地表明，在要约被接受的情况下，承诺应该通过快递发送。然而，西蒙决定通过普通邮寄来接受。因此，在这种情况下，可以说，邮政验收规则是不适用于这种情况下，因此合同还没有结束时，西蒙张贴的信包含承兑。
Issue: The issue in this case is if it can be considered by the parties that a legally enforceable contract has been concluded when Simon posted the letter containing acceptance of the offer and if the postal rule of acceptance is applicable in this case.
Rule: The main requirements of a legally enforceable contract are that there should be an agreement between the parties, which generally consists of an offer and its acceptance and at the same time, there should be a meeting of the minds of the parties. In this regard, acceptance can be described as an unequivocal statement made by the party to whom the offer was made. The law also provides that in order to be effective, it is necessary that the acceptance of one party should be communicated to the other party. Therefore in this regard only a mental decision that the offer has been accepted is not sufficient. According to the general rule, the contract is considered as concluded when the acceptance is communicated to the party making the offer. In case of instantaneous modes of communication, it is considered that the acceptance is received when the party accepting the offer gave it to the offeror. However when post has been used by the parties to communicate the acceptance of the offer, there is a special rule that is known as the postal rule of acceptance (Adams v Lindsell, 1818). According to this rule, when post has been contemplated by the parties as the means of communicating the acceptance of the offer, acceptance takes place when the letter containing acceptance has been posted (Bressan v Squires, 1974).
Application: On the basis of the above-mentioned discussion, it can be said that although the postal rule provides that it is considered that acceptance is received by the party making the when the letter containing the acceptance has been posted. However in this regard, it is also required that post should have been contemplative by the parties as the means of communicating acceptance. In this case, it has been clearly provided by Richard that in case the offer is accepted, the acceptance should be sent by express courier. However, Simon decided to send the acceptance by ordinary post. As a result, it can be said in this case that the postal rule of acceptance is not applicable in this case and therefore the contract has not been concluded when Simon posted the letter containing the acceptance.
