回复：Should've, could've... Don't panick!

来源: idoubtitit 于 2013-06-10 10:46:14 [] [博客] [旧帖] [给我悄悄话] 阅读数 : (486 bytes)
本帖于 2013-06-10 17:54:48 时间, 由版主 我也有话说 编辑
回答: Should've, could've... Don't panick! 由 tryonetry 于 2013-06-10 10:38:31

One argument could be:
Since she didn't timely insist her rights to the kittens upon the first call for help, the buyer deemed the silence as consent that buyer has full rights to deal with the kittens, and the buyer already took actions fully relying on the deemed acquiescence (including posting ads online and found new owners of the kittens). This can be regarded as promissory estoppel even in the absence of written consent, and thus, the breeder lost her rights to the kittens

所有跟帖： 

• "since she---the breeder" -idoubtitit- ♀ 给 idoubtitit 发送悄悄话 idoubtitit 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 06/10/2013 postreply 10:48:08

• 这个我喜欢大家一定帮住把贴在这证据保存好。 -Tonemimi- ♀ 给 Tonemimi 发送悄悄话 Tonemimi 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 06/10/2013 postreply 11:09:07

• Very appreciated for your help with answer in English. -无缘不聚- ♀ 给 无缘不聚 发送悄悄话 无缘不聚 的博客首页 (78 bytes) () 06/10/2013 postreply 11:16:15

请您先登陆，再发跟帖！