0 Download10 Pages 2,283 Words
Add in library
Click this icon and make it bookmark in your library to refer it later.
GOT IT
The contract was void for unilateral mistake. In case of unilateral mistake, one party is responsible for the breach of contract. In this case contract took place between Kim’s Fun Cruises Ltd (KFC) and John for the booking for travelling in boat on 22nd December evening. The rate was also fixed between them at $5,000. A write contract was done between them on 19th December. The contract was void because of the mistake and negligence of Kim’s Fun Cruises Ltd (KFC). In the contract it was stated that that on 22 December John and his family will get the meal in the boat and licensed captain will also be provided to the. The terms of the contract has been breached by KFC because of his mistake. He told that someone has booked the boat and signed the contract with double price before contract with John but he forgot that. In this case negligence has been done by him (Fitzgerald, 2011). It is not only a mistake but an act of misrepresentation or fraudulence which KFC done with John and his family by breaching the written contract with John and giving it to a third party who has done the contract with high price.
John can ask for remedy from KFC in several ways. Firstly breach of contract have took place, so in that case compensatory damages or actual damage can be taken from Kim’s Fun Cruises Ltd (KFC) by asking refund of the money in term of financial damage (Austlii.edu.au, 2017). Special damages can be asked by consequential contract. Punitive damages can also be asked because fraudulence has been done by KFC with John. If the damages were not fulfilled than John could sure KFC to court (Bordia, 2010). Even according to Misrepresentation Act John can sue KFC because the contract is only breached by him because of the double money he took from the third party. In case of contract, he is not allowed to perform such acts because when one contract is done then it is not allowed to sign other contract but KFC did it by fraudulence. In this case misrepresentation has been done which is the reason that the contract is void or cancelled. Unilateral mistake cannot be proved as excuse here (McKendrick, 2014). In this case misrepresentation and breach of contract has been done which is the reason that penalty can be taken from KFC by John.
is described. On 2008 the famous musician “Price” was sued by Revelations Perfume and Cosmetics Company. The company was seeking $100,000 damages for the agreement reneging. It was promised by the flamboyant pop star that he will promote the album on the new perfume of the company and he will also allow his name to use in the package of the perfume but later for granting the interviews Prince refused (Austlii.edu.au, 2017). As it was the contract, so Prince did breach of contract because by mistaken he has sign the contract with someone else o that period. In this case the company sued Price for breach of contract and asked him punitive damages of nearly $4 million to the Revelations Perfume and Cosmetics Company (Bloomberg.com, 2017).
If contract is done between both the parties, but in the mean time if the storm destroy the York which is unknown by both the party then the contract can be cancelled between both the parties. This type of case is known as Common mistake. There are three part of common mistake which is the reason of void of contract. They are Res extinct, Res sua and Mistake as to quality.
In this case it can be inferred as Res extinca. Here both the party has a wrong belief that the thing or place exist which is the subject of the contract but later their illusion is broken when they come to know that the subject has been destroyed or do not exist. As per section 6 of Sales of Goods Act 1979 the contract can be cancelled in this case where the storm destroyed the York in 18th December and as the parties are not aware about the contract till 20th December 2011 (Bridge, 2012). So in this case, it is a legal advice that after knowing about the contract, the contract may be cancelled by both the parties proving it as Res extinct of Common mistake in void contract (Sales of goods act, 2017)..
For example, in Purshotumdas and Co. v Mitsui Bussan Kaisha Ltd. (1911) 12 SSLR 67, In this case the party entailed the precious sale of the goods. According to section 16 and 17 of Sales of Goods Act when something is brought in a market in its quality is needed to be checked.
If John and his family (Estelle and Mike) have taken decision to begin a cruise then it is a legal advice to them to open the cruise somewhere else but not in York because terrorist attack may take place there. Before opening cruise, the travel and cruise rules are needed to be followed by John and his family.
The Finished Timber Company Pty Limited was liquidated. The director of the company was Kevin and Robert. As they are director of the company, so it is their duty to solve the debt of the creditors. As per section 588G of Corporation Act 2001 it is the duty of the director to pay dividend. As per Dividend 1 redeeming money is also the duty of the company’s director. It is the absolute and strict liability to fulfil the needs of the company which is basically one by the director of the company (Varzaley, 2011). In this case 30 days time is given to the company to pay the debt of the creditor and liquidator.
In this case it is also described that the creditors and liquidators will not ask compensation if the money is credited between 3 days and failure to do so can be punishable offence. In this case with the directors of the company the other people may also be in risk and it will be hard to make standing approach for the company.
According to section 588 H of Corporation act proceedings and consideration has done that the director of the company has to give some basic reason to appeal request for some more time dor crediting the money. A director can prove his worst financial condition and he can also prove his illness with strong medical prove which can help him to get some more time to give back the money. There is certain expense where it is described that it is not the director’s is take that the company has experienced certain great loss. It is necessary that to absorb certain great loss proper formulation is needed to be stated whenever necessary (Gevurtz, 2010).
According to Company’s liquidation Act, both Robert and Kevin can take help from Australian Government through which they can get financial help from government. According to Liquidation law, if the liquidated condition is needed to be confined than under the Fair Act if he worse conditions needed to be proved in the court which can be the reason through which the court may give more time to Robert and Kevin (Singh, 2015). As per Company Act, it is necessary that some rules of the company should be fulfilled by the members of the company. It is necessary that several laws are needed to be incorporated through which different substantial acts on director duty can be fulfills.
Duty of diligence has been given by the director of the company. It is the liability of the director to fulfil the rules of the company and save the finance of the company. Here Kevin and Robert has breached due diligence of the director which is the reason that the creditors are asking money from them in time (Loubser, 2010). It is hard for them to give the money in time, so several processes are needed to be used by them to handle the liquidated sate in a proper way. Generally certain regulations are needed to be qualified so that the company’s rules can be fulfilled. In case of several consequences, it is necessary that different subject of approach should be fulfilled and the directors should consciously fulfil the work of the company by not breaching the rules of the company.
For example MH Carbon goes into voluntary liquidation case is sated. In this case MH Carbon Company used to sell credits in market (Austlii.edu.au, 2017). Then voluntary liquidation was experienced by the company. In that process the company was about to be closed, at that moment the company proved its liquidated condition to the court which is the reason that they got 6 months time to give their money to the creditors.
In this case Mike and Ian were the director and shareholder of Windmill Pvt Ltd Company. Ian is the managing director and Mike is the shareholder of the company. In this case an agreement was done by Ina and the third party who wanted to purchase the shares of the company. This is the reason mike was approached by Ian to sell the shares of Windfall to him for the wellbeing of the company. Later Mike become aware that at large price Mikes share has been given to the third party and Mike id not got profit from that deal.
In this case misrepresentation is done by Ian with Mike with fraudulence. For his own profit he has deprived Mike. Breach of duty of diligence is done by Ian by doing fraudulence with Mike who is the minor share holder of the company (Degenhardt, 2010). It is the director’s duty to give notices and ask for the approval of the share’s price but here Ian has not fulfilled the duty of the directors. According to section 588G of Corporation Act 2001 for breaching the rules of the act, he may be punished under Corporation Act 2001. The Minority share holder (Mike) can sue Ian to court for misrepresentation him and doing fraudulence with him taking his shares with a less price and selling it in high price (Sheikh, 2013).
Directors owe the fiduciary duties. It is necessary that good faith is needed to be maintained and the share holder of the company should be benefitted. There is a resolution for Mike. Under unfair dismissal of Company’s Act implications of the breach can be taken. The shareholder can remove the director from office. The injunction of force can be stopped. In the place of the director the shareholders can act. Mike can remove the director Ian from the office under Companies Act, 2006. Here breach of directors’ fiduciary duty has been done by Ian. So in this case the role of the directors is needed to be explained in director’s board meeting and in that meeting, it is needed to be described that what the fraudulence act which is done by Ian. By this way Mike can not only remove Ian from office but he can also claim compensation for breaching the fiduciary duties by taking his shares in a low price and selling it is high price (Villiers, 2010). All this things wasted the good faith of the director and that is the reason that penalty is needed to be taken for him or else he may be sued to court for is deeds.
For example a case of Company Act is described that is Brady V Brady [1988] 2 All ER 617 HL Case. In this case share capital of the company is maintained but while involving with the company’s market value dismissal in act of the company is found because Brady breached the rules of Corporation Act
Austlii.edu.au. (2017). CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 477Powers of liquidator. [online] Available at: https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s477.html [Accessed 9 May 2017].
Austlii.edu.au. (2017). SALE OF GOODS ACT 1923 - SECT 5Definitions. [online] Available at: https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/soga1923128/s5.html#action [Accessed 9 May 2017].
Austlii.edu.au. (2017). SALE OF GOODS ACT 1923. [online] Available at: https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/soga1923128/ [Accessed 9 May 2017].
Bloomberg.com. (2017). Musician Prince Settles Lawsuit Over Perfume Deal. [online] Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-03-29/musician-prince-settles-lawsuit-by-vivendi-over-marketing-deal [Accessed 9 May 2017].
Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, S., & Tang, R. L. (2010). Breach begets breach: Trickle-down effects of psychological contract breach on customer service. Journal of Management, 36(6), 1578-1607.
Bridge, M. G. (Ed.). (2012). Benjamin's sale of goods (Vol. 11). Sweet & Maxwell.
Degenhardt, K. (Ed.). (2010). Companies Act 2006. BoD–Books on Demand.
Fitzgerald, A. M., Fitzgerald, B. F., Middleton, G., Clark, E., & Lim, Y. F. (2011). Internet and e-commerce law, business and policy. Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Ltd.
Gevurtz, F. (2010). Gevurtz's Corporation Law, 2d (Hornbook Series). West Academic.
Loubser, A. (2010). The business rescue proceedings in the Companies Act of 2008: concerns and questions (part 1). Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg, 2010(3), 501-514.
McKendrick, E. (2014). Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK).
Sales of goods act, (2017). [online] Available at: https://uniten.weebly.com/uploads/5/3/7/3/53736891/topic_3_law_of_sale_of_goods.pdf [Accessed 9 May 2017].
Sheikh, S. (2013). A guide to the Companies Act 2006. Routledge.
Singh, A. (2015). Company law.
Varzaly, J. (2012). Protecting the authority of directors: an empirical analysis of the statutory business judgment rule.
Villiers, C. (2010). Directors’ duties and the company’s Internal structures under the UK Companies Act 2006: obstacles for sustainable development’. Research Paper Series, (2010-03).
The contract was void for unilateral mistake. In case of unilateral mistake, one party is responsible for the breach of contract. In this case contract took place between Kim’s Fun Cruises Ltd (KFC) and John for the booking for travelling in boat on 22nd December evening. The rate was also fixed between them at $5,000. A write contract was done between them on 19th December. The contract was void because of the mistake and negligence of Kim’s Fun Cruises Ltd (KFC). In the contract it was stated that that on 22 December John and his family will get the meal in the boat and licensed captain will also be provided to the. The terms of the contract has been breached by KFC because of his mistake. He told that someone has booked the boat and signed the contract with double price before contract with John but he forgot that. In this case negligence has been done by him (Fitzgerald, 2011). It is not only a mistake but an act of misrepresentation or fraudulence which KFC done with John and his family by breaching the written contract with John and giving it to a third party who has done the contract with high price.
John can ask for remedy from KFC in several ways. Firstly breach of contract have took place, so in that case compensatory damages or actual damage can be taken from Kim’s Fun Cruises Ltd (KFC) by asking refund of the money in term of financial damage (Austlii.edu.au, 2017). Special damages can be asked by consequential contract. Punitive damages can also be asked because fraudulence has been done by KFC with John. If the damages were not fulfilled than John could sure KFC to court (Bordia, 2010). Even according to Misrepresentation Act John can sue KFC because the contract is only breached by him because of the double money he took from the third party. In case of contract, he is not allowed to perform such acts because when one contract is done then it is not allowed to sign other contract but KFC did it by fraudulence. In this case misrepresentation has been done which is the reason that the contract is void or cancelled. Unilateral mistake cannot be proved as excuse here (McKendrick, 2014). In this case misrepresentation and breach of contract has been done which is the reason that penalty can be taken from KFC by John.
is described. On 2008 the famous musician “Price” was sued by Revelations Perfume and Cosmetics Company. The company was seeking $100,000 damages for the agreement reneging. It was promised by the flamboyant pop star that he will promote the album on the new perfume of the company and he will also allow his name to use in the package of the perfume but later for granting the interviews Prince refused (Austlii.edu.au, 2017). As it was the contract, so Prince did breach of contract because by mistaken he has sign the contract with someone else o that period. In this case the company sued Price for breach of contract and asked him punitive damages of nearly $4 million to the Revelations Perfume and Cosmetics Company (Bloomberg.com, 2017).
If contract is done between both the parties, but in the mean time if the storm destroy the York which is unknown by both the party then the contract can be cancelled between both the parties. This type of case is known as Common mistake. There are three part of common mistake which is the reason of void of contract. They are Res extinct, Res sua and Mistake as to quality.
In this case it can be inferred as Res extinca. Here both the party has a wrong belief that the thing or place exist which is the subject of the contract but later their illusion is broken when they come to know that the subject has been destroyed or do not exist. As per section 6 of Sales of Goods Act 1979 the contract can be cancelled in this case where the storm destroyed the York in 18th December and as the parties are not aware about the contract till 20th December 2011 (Bridge, 2012). So in this case, it is a legal advice that after knowing about the contract, the contract may be cancelled by both the parties proving it as Res extinct of Common mistake in void contract (Sales of goods act, 2017)..
For example, in Purshotumdas and Co. v Mitsui Bussan Kaisha Ltd. (1911) 12 SSLR 67, In this case the party entailed the precious sale of the goods. According to section 16 and 17 of Sales of Goods Act when something is brought in a market in its quality is needed to be checked.
If John and his family (Estelle and Mike) have taken decision to begin a cruise then it is a legal advice to them to open the cruise somewhere else but not in York because terrorist attack may take place there. Before opening cruise, the travel and cruise rules are needed to be followed by John and his family.
The Finished Timber Company Pty Limited was liquidated. The director of the company was Kevin and Robert. As they are director of the company, so it is their duty to solve the debt of the creditors. As per section 588G of Corporation Act 2001 it is the duty of the director to pay dividend. As per Dividend 1 redeeming money is also the duty of the company’s director. It is the absolute and strict liability to fulfil the needs of the company which is basically one by the director of the company (Varzaley, 2011). In this case 30 days time is given to the company to pay the debt of the creditor and liquidator.
In this case it is also described that the creditors and liquidators will not ask compensation if the money is credited between 3 days and failure to do so can be punishable offence. In this case with the directors of the company the other people may also be in risk and it will be hard to make standing approach for the company.
According to section 588 H of Corporation act proceedings and consideration has done that the director of the company has to give some basic reason to appeal request for some more time dor crediting the money. A director can prove his worst financial condition and he can also prove his illness with strong medical prove which can help him to get some more time to give back the money. There is certain expense where it is described that it is not the director’s is take that the company has experienced certain great loss. It is necessary that to absorb certain great loss proper formulation is needed to be stated whenever necessary (Gevurtz, 2010).
According to Company’s liquidation Act, both Robert and Kevin can take help from Australian Government through which they can get financial help from government. According to Liquidation law, if the liquidated condition is needed to be confined than under the Fair Act if he worse conditions needed to be proved in the court which can be the reason through which the court may give more time to Robert and Kevin (Singh, 2015). As per Company Act, it is necessary that some rules of the company should be fulfilled by the members of the company. It is necessary that several laws are needed to be incorporated through which different substantial acts on director duty can be fulfills.
Duty of diligence has been given by the director of the company. It is the liability of the director to fulfil the rules of the company and save the finance of the company. Here Kevin and Robert has breached due diligence of the director which is the reason that the creditors are asking money from them in time (Loubser, 2010). It is hard for them to give the money in time, so several processes are needed to be used by them to handle the liquidated sate in a proper way. Generally certain regulations are needed to be qualified so that the company’s rules can be fulfilled. In case of several consequences, it is necessary that different subject of approach should be fulfilled and the directors should consciously fulfil the work of the company by not breaching the rules of the company.
For example MH Carbon goes into voluntary liquidation case is sated. In this case MH Carbon Company used to sell credits in market (Austlii.edu.au, 2017). Then voluntary liquidation was experienced by the company. In that process the company was about to be closed, at that moment the company proved its liquidated condition to the court which is the reason that they got 6 months time to give their money to the creditors.
In this case Mike and Ian were the director and shareholder of Windmill Pvt Ltd Company. Ian is the managing director and Mike is the shareholder of the company. In this case an agreement was done by Ina and the third party who wanted to purchase the shares of the company. This is the reason mike was approached by Ian to sell the shares of Windfall to him for the wellbeing of the company. Later Mike become aware that at large price Mikes share has been given to the third party and Mike id not got profit from that deal.
In this case misrepresentation is done by Ian with Mike with fraudulence. For his own profit he has deprived Mike. Breach of duty of diligence is done by Ian by doing fraudulence with Mike who is the minor share holder of the company (Degenhardt, 2010). It is the director’s duty to give notices and ask for the approval of the share’s price but here Ian has not fulfilled the duty of the directors. According to section 588G of Corporation Act 2001 for breaching the rules of the act, he may be punished under Corporation Act 2001. The Minority share holder (Mike) can sue Ian to court for misrepresentation him and doing fraudulence with him taking his shares with a less price and selling it in high price (Sheikh, 2013).
Directors owe the fiduciary duties. It is necessary that good faith is needed to be maintained and the share holder of the company should be benefitted. There is a resolution for Mike. Under unfair dismissal of Company’s Act implications of the breach can be taken. The shareholder can remove the director from office. The injunction of force can be stopped. In the place of the director the shareholders can act. Mike can remove the director Ian from the office under Companies Act, 2006. Here breach of directors’ fiduciary duty has been done by Ian. So in this case the role of the directors is needed to be explained in director’s board meeting and in that meeting, it is needed to be described that what the fraudulence act which is done by Ian. By this way Mike can not only remove Ian from office but he can also claim compensation for breaching the fiduciary duties by taking his shares in a low price and selling it is high price (Villiers, 2010). All this things wasted the good faith of the director and that is the reason that penalty is needed to be taken for him or else he may be sued to court for is deeds.
For example a case of Company Act is described that is Brady V Brady [1988] 2 All ER 617 HL Case. In this case share capital of the company is maintained but while involving with the company’s market value dismissal in act of the company is found because Brady breached the rules of Corporation Act
Austlii.edu.au. (2017). CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 477Powers of liquidator. [online] Available at: https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s477.html [Accessed 9 May 2017].
Austlii.edu.au. (2017). SALE OF GOODS ACT 1923 - SECT 5Definitions. [online] Available at: https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/soga1923128/s5.html#action [Accessed 9 May 2017].
Austlii.edu.au. (2017). SALE OF GOODS ACT 1923. [online] Available at: https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/soga1923128/ [Accessed 9 May 2017].
Bloomberg.com. (2017). Musician Prince Settles Lawsuit Over Perfume Deal. [online] Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-03-29/musician-prince-settles-lawsuit-by-vivendi-over-marketing-deal [Accessed 9 May 2017].
Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, S., & Tang, R. L. (2010). Breach begets breach: Trickle-down effects of psychological contract breach on customer service. Journal of Management, 36(6), 1578-1607.
Bridge, M. G. (Ed.). (2012). Benjamin's sale of goods (Vol. 11). Sweet & Maxwell.
Degenhardt, K. (Ed.). (2010). Companies Act 2006. BoD–Books on Demand.
Fitzgerald, A. M., Fitzgerald, B. F., Middleton, G., Clark, E., & Lim, Y. F. (2011). Internet and e-commerce law, business and policy. Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Ltd.
Gevurtz, F. (2010). Gevurtz's Corporation Law, 2d (Hornbook Series). West Academic.
Loubser, A. (2010). The business rescue proceedings in the Companies Act of 2008: concerns and questions (part 1). Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg, 2010(3), 501-514.
McKendrick, E. (2014). Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK).
Sales of goods act, (2017). [online] Available at: https://uniten.weebly.com/uploads/5/3/7/3/53736891/topic_3_law_of_sale_of_goods.pdf [Accessed 9 May 2017].
Sheikh, S. (2013). A guide to the Companies Act 2006. Routledge.
Singh, A. (2015). Company law.
Varzaly, J. (2012). Protecting the authority of directors: an empirical analysis of the statutory business judgment rule.
Villiers, C. (2010). Directors’ duties and the company’s Internal structures under the UK Companies Act 2006: obstacles for sustainable development’. Research Paper Series, (2010-03).
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
My Assignment Help. (2018). Effects Of Psychological Contract Breach On Customer Service. Retrieved from https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/effects-of-psychological-contract-breach-on-customer-service.
"Effects Of Psychological Contract Breach On Customer Service." My Assignment Help, 2018, https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/effects-of-psychological-contract-breach-on-customer-service.
My Assignment Help (2018) Effects Of Psychological Contract Breach On Customer Service [Online]. Available from: https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/effects-of-psychological-contract-breach-on-customer-service
[Accessed 30 March 2020].
My Assignment Help. 'Effects Of Psychological Contract Breach On Customer Service' (My Assignment Help, 2018) <https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/effects-of-psychological-contract-breach-on-customer-service> accessed 30 March 2020.
My Assignment Help. Effects Of Psychological Contract Breach On Customer Service [Internet]. My Assignment Help. 2018 [cited 30 March 2020]. Available from: https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/effects-of-psychological-contract-breach-on-customer-service.
At MyAssignmenthelp.com, we are committed to deliver quality assignment assistance in the fastest way possible. To make our service delivery fast, we have hired subject matter experts to work on different subject specific assignments. We have hired experts who owe in-depth knowledge in their respective subjects. As per their expertise, they provide geography assignment help, Physics assignment help, Strategic assignment help, history assignment help, art architecture assignment help and assistance with other subjects as well.
Answer: Introduction Sexual harassment takes account of behaviours from glances and inappropriate comments, jokes majorly based on gender stereotypes to sexual assault and other acts of physical violence. The addition to the principle of human dignity in Catholic social teaching has been the notion of unity and solidarity. Moreover, the assurance of personal dignity positions on protections ensured by the society. According to Triana et al. (...
Read More
Answer: The Post The Fitbit is an accessory health device which is quite popular with respect to the fact that, health and fitness has become a premium industry. The Fitbit business started back in 2009 and gained utmost popularity in those days. The business model of the firm aims to provide a differentiated product to the different customers with various health data in return which can be useful in measuring the overall health and fitness a...
Read More
Answer: The selected product overview L’Or`eal S.A is a France based personal care company the headquarter of which is located in Clichy, Hauts –de –Seine. The company was founded by Eugene Schueller in the year 1909. The CEO of the company is Jean –Paul Agon and by the year 2017, the company has gathered revenues up to 4. 676 billion Euros. It has been considered as one of the largest brands in the c...
Read More
Answer: Introduction: Price water house coopers is a professional services provider, which is a multinational company networked with firms in more than 158 nations. The services provided by the company include capital markets, audit and assurance, financial counseling, financial solutions, improved decision making, and many more services to private and public clients (pwc, 2019). Diversification strategy There are various types o...
Read More
Answer: Introduction Communication can be defined as the exchange of information that takes place between a sender and a receiver (Habermas, 2015). With the emergence of technology, the process of sharing information has shifted from face- to- face interaction or paper work to the use of electronic media. Communication that takes place with the help of electronic media is known as electronic communication or e- communication. The term communi...
Read More
Just share your requirements and get customized solutions on time.
Orders
Overall Rating
Experts
Our writers make sure that all orders are submitted, prior to the deadline.
Using reliable plagiarism detection software, Turnitin.com.We only provide customized 100 percent original papers.
Feel free to contact our assignment writing services any time via phone, email or live chat.
Our writers can provide you professional writing assistance on any subject at any level.
Our best price guarantee ensures that the features we offer cannot be matched by any of the competitors.
1896 Order Completed
95% Response Time
529 Order Completed
95% Response Time
453 Order Completed
98% Response Time
Get all your documents checked for plagiarism or duplicacy with us.
Get different kinds of essays typed in minutes with clicks.
Calculate your semester grades and cumulative GPa with our GPA Calculator.
Balance any chemical equation in minutes just by entering the formula.
Calculate the number of words and number of pages of all your academic documents.
Our Mission Client Satisfaction
Awesome write up for my assignment!!! Worth the money paid!!! Will come back .....
Australia
I really appreciate how the editor understood what I really meant to say thus making me feel more confident in submitting my work. I am an extremely happy customer. I will definitely sen un update on my grade.
Australia
Excellent work. We got total of 68 marks and we are very satisfied with the score. We gave this assignment near to deadline which is 2 days before due date. The assignment was about 4000 words and they did it well and gave it before 8 hours of submis...
Australia
I can\'t complain, speedy service and got the assignment before the deadline and got full mark
Australia
