• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Postal Acceptance Rule

Extracts from this document...


Postal Acceptance Rule Contract is formed at the time and place an acceptance is communicated to the offeror. An acceptance must correspond to the offer. There is no particular method of acceptance prescribed by law. The appropriate method of acceptance will depend on the fact of each situation. The offerees may find themselves faced with two types of situation. First the offer may dictate a method of acceptance. It may indicate that acceptance should be sent by return fax by a certain date. The second broad category is where there is no indication in the offer of an appropriate method of acceptance. The general rule followed by offeree is that acceptance may be given by the same or an equally expedient method as adopted for the making of the offer. Hence it follows that until the acceptance is received by the offeror the offer may be revoked. In the late 19th century an exception to the general agreement for communication of an acceptance arose in order to avoid the extraordinary and mischievous consequences that would follow if it might be held that the offer might be revoked at any time until the letter accepting it had actually been received. ...read more.


The courts were compelled to examine further policy considerations in order to determine whether the postal acceptance rule should be retained. The courts formed the view that the postal acceptance rule could be justified on the grounds of agency. It was argued that the post office was the agent of the offeror and offeree and that consequently acceptance must be viewed as complete upon delivery to the post office. The argument was that the reason is not satisfactory. "The post offices are only carriers between them. They are agents to convey the communication, not to receive it. The difference is between saying ' Tell my agent A, if you accept' and 'Send your answer to me by A.' In the former case A is to be intelligent recipient of the acceptance, in the latter he is only to convey the communication to the person making the offer which he may do by letter, knowing nothing of its contents. The post office are only agents in the latter sense. The most persuasive reason for wholly rejecting the justification based on agency has been stated by Simon Gardner, who argues that an offeror's agreement to use the post as a means of communicational acceptance "surely does not establish agency. ...read more.


Contract is formed at the moment acceptance takes place. The mistake on the part of mutual agent falls equally upon the shoulders of both and this causes inconvenience or hardship. However this can be counter argued. If an offeror choses he can always make the formation of the contract, however he proposes absolute formation of contract upon actual communication to himself of the acceptance. If the offeror does not receive any reply from the offeree he can always make inquiries to the offeree about the offer. If the contract is not concluded there would be considerable delay in transactions and the acceptor would never be safe until he has received notice that his letter of acceptance had reached its destination. (Source: Kathryn O' Shea and Kylie Skeahan (1997) "Acceptance of offers by E-mail - How Far should the postal Acceptance Rule Extend? " QUT Law Journal, Vol 13, pp 247-262). The nature of postal acceptance rule denotes a separation of parties by time and distance. If each party felt that they were not bound by their assent to contractual terms until they received confirmation of the other's receipt then the situation ' might go on ad infinitum'. Hence no contract would ever be completed by post unless a legal ruling was made on the matter. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Contract section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Contract essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    "The requirement of consideration is an unnecessary complication in the formation of contracts."

    4 star(s)

    Later in the case of Foakes v Beer [1884], the House of Lords held that the principle in the Pinnel's case remained good law. It has been criticized by Lord Blackburn that in reality, prompt payment of a part of another claim might be more beneficial to creditors than enforcing

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Contract Law - Acceptance.

    4 star(s)

    CASE: Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd v Cooper (1941) - an owned of land had promised to pay an estate agent �10,000 in commission if the agent was able to find a buyer willing to pay �17,500 for the land. The arrangement was on the terms that are usual between an estate

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Contract Law - Offer And Acceptance

    3 star(s)

    by wine merchant are ITT 8 * Notice on entrance car park is offer, it is accepted by driving into the car park9 * Display of deck chair for hire...it is an offer10 Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Co (1893) The manufacture company offered to pay �100 reward will be paid

  2. Contract Law - offer and acceptance.

    The case also stated where communication was outside of business hours it could be expected that the communication was effective with the recommencement of normal business hours. Although the case was to do with the revocation of the use of a ship it has been suggested the same rules would apply to communication of acceptance.

  1. Offer and Acceptance

    Therefore in Sheena's case, her acceptance of the offer was when she queued up and entered the store as the seventh customer, this is accepting the offer via conduct shown as mentioned earlier in the Carlill case and also in Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co.


    Ormerod LJ "In the present case I would unhesitatingly hold that the stipulation that the goods were to be shipped in good condition was not a condition, and that on the facts of this case the breach did not go to the root of the contract, and that consequently the buyers were not entitled to reject the goods.


    * Specific implement - will only be granted to pursuer if court thinks it is appropriate, pursuer is asking court to make an order (decree)to force defender to carry out contractual obligation E.g.

  2. "There are occasions where terms are implied into contracts which have never been discussed ...

    The classic test used to determine whether a term is implied by fact was laid down in the judgement of Lord MacKinnon in Shirlaw v Southern Foundries Ltd as is phased as follows: "Prima facie that which in any contract is left to be implied and need not be expressed

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work