回複:合同條款有15條之多,不好意思。謝謝啦。

unfortunately, there is no time limitation for the performance on their side. they can sue. it does not have to be in the contract. but the likelihood is that they will not win if you could make a good argument on circumstances. also, as you've pointed, the second clause anticipates the cancellation of the order (so called liquidation damage clause). if the fact pattern is what you've stated, you have a reasonable shot to win. if you don't want the furniture, don't buy. if i were you, i will dare them to sue. (Well, actually, i will sue them first for the deposit because of their unreasonably delay, bad faith lying and whatever that made me mad. but i don't need to hire an attorney. ) anyway, they might sue, but i doubt it, they have the liquidation damage clause in their contract, and that's most likely what they going to get even if they win.

所有跟帖: 

correction -Jellyfish- 給 Jellyfish 發送悄悄話 (51 bytes) () 10/05/2005 postreply 23:24:49

Even they win -JessicaZo- 給 JessicaZo 發送悄悄話 (126 bytes) () 10/06/2005 postreply 10:05:21

Any limitation in law? -JessicaZo- 給 JessicaZo 發送悄悄話 (234 bytes) () 10/06/2005 postreply 10:15:06

回複:Any limitation in law? -Jellyfish- 給 Jellyfish 發送悄悄話 (510 bytes) () 10/06/2005 postreply 10:53:01

Thank you very much, but... -JessicaZo- 給 JessicaZo 發送悄悄話 (238 bytes) () 10/06/2005 postreply 20:49:07

回複:Thank you very much, but... -Jellyfish- 給 Jellyfish 發送悄悄話 (640 bytes) () 10/06/2005 postreply 22:19:34

The name on contract is not me -JessicaZo- 給 JessicaZo 發送悄悄話 (138 bytes) () 10/06/2005 postreply 20:56:29

回複:The name on contract is not me -Jellyfish- 給 Jellyfish 發送悄悄話 (343 bytes) () 10/06/2005 postreply 22:25:21

請您先登陸,再發跟帖!