Time If an offer stipulates a time for acceptance then acceptance after that time will be ineffective. Lindsell saw it differently and argued that there was never a valid contract because acceptance was not received by the specific date of September 7th. In this version of the lottery instead of being granted everything you have ever wanted, you get to live your worst nightmare beginning with losing everyone who has. The mailbox rule applied, and Grant was responsible to pay for the shares he had requested from Household Fire. See also the definitive statement on the matter in Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Co ; at 269.
Grant 1878-79 , receipt of mail is not a factor. There is ongoing and vigorous discussion relating to valid introduction of revocation into the current law as it would bring postal rule closer to 21 st century and perhaps there are also historical ties and tradition that would be in favour of retaining postal rule in the legislation system. Cast your mind back to your first contract law lecture, where your tweed-blazer wearing professor told you about how buying a bus ticket is entering into a contract, and it will all come flooding back as to how there are three basic elements to a contract: - The parties must have reached an agreement offer and acceptance - The parties must intend to be bound legally - The parties must have provided valuable consideration. He sent Henthorn a letter of withdrawal before acceptance was received - but after Henthorn actually placed it in the mail. However, the weak economy over the last couple of years has also contributed to this decline. Introduction In the modern world, technology had improved, the advance technology had led to a convenience life, and people can easily receive and send out a message and even a contract.
Wouldn't the Golden Rule apply, even if it weren't given to us in the Bible? The rationale for the rule is thus : the nature of postal communication denotes a separation of parties by time and distance. History and Background of the Postal Acceptance Rule 5 3. A letter of share was posted to the defendant but in never reached him. So the acceptance is complete immediately the letter of acceptance is posted, even if the letter is delayed, destroyed or lost so that the offeror never receives it. It has to date only been passed in two states, Virginia and Maryland, and has met with considerable criticism. However it is mistaken to suggest that it deals with a clarification of the postal acceptance rule for electronic communications. Furthermore, if it is deemed that the provisions in relation to place of receipt subsequently determine the place of formation, does this necessarily mean that that is also time of formation? On receiving the letter the claimant posted a letter of acceptance the same day.
For this reason, courts will consider acceptance effective on posting, even when the letter is lost in the post. If no, evidence may be offered to supplement the writing but not to contradict it. Some say the best explanation is that the common law has recognised that when letters are used one of the parties inevitably must accept the risk involved. By placing this offer in the mailbox with appropriate postage, it will be considered a valid offer. This is for two reasons: firstly, by doing so, the offeree has done all that they possibly can and the letter is now in the hands of the postal service; and, secondly, if the offeror has problems or concerns about an acceptance being communicated by post, they are able to stipulate as such within the initial offer. Applying the basic principles of contract law, this means the moment of acceptance. Does the postal rule apply to email? This paper will discuss two main arguments.
In common law, a person who does not receive a message, or in our case an acceptance, in a timely fashion because of poor business practices or deliberate evasion cannot rely on their tardiness to delay the time of the notice : …if a notice arrives at the address of the person to be notified, at such a time and by such a means of communication that it would in the normal course of business come to the attention of that person on its arrival, that person cannot rely on some failure of himself or his servants to act in a normal businesslike manner in respect of taking cognisance of the communication, so as to postpone the effective time of the notice until some later time when in fact it came to his attention. Lindsell 1818 , Henthorn v. Can we accept that a second acceptance from an other place after ours, which arrived before ours because of a strike in our post center is valid and that we consequently loose the contract? Electronic Commerce : Building the Legal Framework, Report of the Electronic Commerce Expert Group to the Attorney General, 31 March 1998. The claimant, however, submitted that the email was effective from 18:00 hrs Friday evening by analogy with the postal rule ie effective at the moment of dispatch. There was actually a contract exists before the sale of the wool because acceptance made right after the mail is being mailed. On the other hand the offeror bears the risk of failure of communication, even if it is not his fault. As to the acceptance, if it was contemplated that it might be sent by post, the acceptor, in Lord Cottenham's language, has done all that he was bound to do by posting the letter, but this cannot be said as to the notice of withdrawal.
It may be addressed to one particular person, a group of persons, or the world at large, as in an offer of a reward. On the one hand there is the way via the internet. Subsequently, b inding contract is formed once valid acceptance has effect. Any delay which occurs between sending and receiving post letters creates potential risk for both parties due to the uncertainty as to when the message is deemed to have been received. Is the offeree which send an acceptation and revocked it just after by mail bind when both arrived at the same time? Delivering this much mail, requires managing almost 800,000 employees and contractors, 38,000 facilities and 214,000 vehicles. The argument for choosing to favour the offeree is that it is easier to prove posting than receipt. The idea of positioning risk for the lack of, or delay in, actual communication because of the fault of the receiver has been addressed in relation to communications in virtually every mode and form.
Even if the different terms are immaterial the counter-offer will be treated as a rejection and new offer. Therefore, the defendant was liable in breach of contract. Mailbox Rule and the Case of the Missing Mail Sometimes, the mail simply does not reach the intended recipient. If yes, evidence may be offered to supplement the writing but not to contradict it. In the meantime, Fraser decided to withdraw the offer.
Finally the conclusion of the term paper is collectively assessed. The post, which used to take several weeks, arrives after a few days and modern communication systems like fax, telephone and email were established. This reluctance to extend the principles of the provision beyond computerised transmissions causes a conundrum. There is always possibility that the letter may not arrive. Such legislation is often entitled the Electronic Transactions Act. Taylor and Taylor, 2007: 41 Another problem that arises during the discussion concerning electronic communication is in which jurisdiction was contract concluded. Others suggest the rule is explained by the argument that those who offer, in posting the letter has done all they can possibly do to communicate to the destination host as communication can only take place when the letter is received and that the letter is, after posting, beyond their control.
The acceptance must be mailed in a timely manner or according to the terms of the offer. This can be a written or orally offered. The case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke ball co. In the context in which the email had been sent that is, a transaction which all had agreed could have been completed that evening , then the email was not outside working hours. But, I cannot imagine that normal people would murder and steal.