加拿大论文代写-布拉德提出索赔的建议分析。布拉德不幸地发现自己陷入了困境，当他发现基尤大学未能获得他所注册的课程的必要认证。给布拉德的建议是，即使他支付的学费是3万美元，而不是整个课程的6万美元，也是一样的。我建议他对这所大学采取法律行动，因为他与这所大学达成了一项协议，同意提供承诺的学位和正确的认证。然而，根据1974年的《贸易惯例法》(Trade Practices Act 1974)，由于假定的价值为3万美元，属于消费者合同，布拉德有多种选择来提出索赔。词语的解释必须赋予其自然和普通的含义，因此，这意味着，大学在发布的待定认证广告中所提出的要求和承诺，必须被解释为它应该完成。
Brad unfortunately found himself into a fix when he found that the University of Kew failed to get the requisite accreditation of the course he enrolled in.
My advice to Brad even if the fees he paid would be $30,000 instead of $60,000 that he paid for the entire course would be same. I would advise him to take legal action against the university, since he had an agreement with the University for offering the promised degree with the right accreditation. However, since the value assumed to $30,000, which falls under consumer contracts, brad has multiple options to raise his claim according to the Trade Practices Act 1974. The interpretation of words must be given their natural and ordinary meaning, thus it implies that the University’s claim and promise as laid down in the advertisement published of the accreditation being pending must be interpreted as it is due to be completed. Any student who reads such an advertisement would for obvious reasons assume that the course will get the accreditation by the time it is finished, because in general terms it is a given fact that any course which is not accredited by the relevant authority is not considered as valid and legitimate. This is a normal and ordinary interpretation of what the University of Kew mentioned in the advertisement.
In addition, the analysis of the clause in the admission form in the large red font explains the case much easily. The clause demands an approval of the student in accepting the non-representation of the university in terms of the quality, outcome, duration, and suitability of any course provided. To add, the clause also demands an approval signature on the agreement that there must be no reliance in any manner in whatsoever subject proposed by any staff member. These two clauses gives a feeling that the University of Kew is wilfully attempting to reduce or nullify its liability. This coincides with section 80 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, which states that any injunction by means of a promise demanded from the consumer in the pretext of getting the order approved is a violation. In addition, section 82 which describes the damages incurred by the consumer, section 87 describing ancillary orders, section 53 that describes false and misleading representation, all sections together applie here because they are all violated and the University has misled Brad by breaching its own commitment and the above sections of the act. The statutory interpretation informs that any party will for obvious reasons try and reduce the liability on its part in matters that are most likely to be financially significant, and thus it is considered as an act of intentional deception of one’s inherent obligations. This implies that the University of Kew intentionally used misleading contractual clauses to dupe students and have them enrol in unaccredited courses which apparently has no value even when completed successfully.