Considering the offer made by Galac-Tech, the rules of accepting this offer are simple, as it is specified within the advert , that acceptance’s need to be posted in writing. Once an offeree has written a letter accepting the offer as it states in the advert, both parties are legally in a contract. Relating this to the Carbolic Smoke Ball case, if Galac-Tech was to reject an offeree that used the correct procedure to respond to the offer, Galac-Tech would be breaching the contract and therefore could be sued.
According to (Mitchell 2009) “The postal rule simply states that a letter of acceptance takes effect when it is placed into the post-box or handed in at a post office for this purpose. “
Mr Baltar in the coursework scenario accepted the offer by complying with the postal method in date, as stated in the advert, and therefore on Mr Baltar’s defence there is a contract.
Also the fact that Mr Baltar assumed payment by cheque was “OK”, does not cancel the offer, as he is making an additional enquiry whether a modification of the offer is possible. This can be backed up with the case of Stevenson, Jacques & Co v McLean (1880), as the offeree made an attempt to modify the offer, but did not reject the initial offer of buying the iron at the price of 40s per ton.
However by asking questions within the letter to Galac-Tech, means that there isn’t a contract, due to the fact that Mr Baltar is not accepting the offer as it is advertised, as he is requesting additional information about the offer made by the offerer. This situation could be linked to the Hyde v. Wrench, [1840] case, when the judge decided that when making a counter offer, the initial offer terminates.
On the other hand Mr Baltar did not reject the offer, therefore the offer he accepted was kept alive depending on the question and assumption he had made to Galac-Tech. Galac-Tech should have replied to Mr Baltor answering the queries Mr Baltar had, as there was enough time to reply in terms of the deadline set for the 31st January 2010.
The fact that Mr Baltar complied with the method of communication gives him the right to be in a contract with Galac-Tech, but looking in defence of Galac-Tech, the offeree (Mr Baltar), assumes software and payment by cheque to be acceptable, when the advert clearly states that it is “Cash on Delivery”.
Recognising the commercial pragmatism of the situation, it would be logical for Mr Baltar not to sue Galac-Tech, due to the fact that there was not a clear breach of contract as Mr Baltar did not accept the offer in the terms it was stated in the advert, instead asking for further details. Even if Mr Baltar was to receive a reply saying that software was not included, Mr Baltar would probably back out of the offer, and therefore would be breaching the contract.
Looking at the situation of Ms Caprica there are various factors to consider on whether she can sue Galac-tech for breach of contract or not. The fact that she did not comply with the method of communication and used fax instead of Post, as a method of communication clearly does not put her in a good situation, as the advert clearly states Post should be the method of communication. If she had posted a letter of acceptance in the morning instead of a fax, she would have been able to sue Galac-Tech for breach of contract for sure, due to the fact that the postal rule applies as soon as a letter of acceptance has been posted. Looking at the Adams v Lindsell (1818) case, the offeree posting the letter is in contract with the offerer even though the offerer did not receive the letter until after the deadline. The judge decided that the offeree is the right and has the right to sue, due to the fact that postal contracts would never work if this rule was not applied, as post back in 1818 was not as fast and frequent as it is today.
“The Adams v Lindsell postal rule only applies when it is reasonable to use the post as a means of communicating acceptance”.Therefore if Ms Caprica had posted the letter of acceptance rather than faxing it, there would have been a contract with Galac-tech for sure, as the Henthorn v Fraser [1892] court case illustrates , where the verdict was that the offeree was in contract with the offerer , as the letter was arrived after the deadline , but posted within the deadline and therefore the postal rule applies.
However there are possibilities that Ms Caprica could sue Galac-tech, due to the fact that the advert says “reply by post”, not specifying that the offer can be accepted by post only, as it could just be seen as preferred way of communication regarding the offer. Thus Ms Caprica used an alternative method of communication, as she would have known that the post would not have arrived by 5pm on the same day.
Recognising the commercial pragmatism of the situation, it would be logical for Ms Caprica not to sue Galac-Tech for breach of contract. The reason for this is that she did not comply with the communication method stated in the advert, whereas Ms Carlil did in the Carbolic Smoke Ball case, and was therefore in the right and had the right to sue for breach of contract.
However unlike Mr Baltar, Ms Caprica would probably stand a better chance of winning in the county court, as there are possibilities that there was a contract depending on whether the judge decides, that the alternative way of communication was appropriate, or if Ms Caprica should have known to post the letter instead knowing she would be in contract with Galac-tech according to the postal rule, and benefit from the offer advertised.
On the other hand considering personal solicitors and small claims costs, it would probably not be worth it for Ms Caprica to sue Galac-Tech, as she would probably spend the same amount of money on her solicitors, than she would get out of a possible compensation.
Martin, J (2008). AQA LAW for AS. London: Barking Dog Art Cover Photo. p.220.
Macken, C. (nd). Sample case summary of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1892] 2 QB 484. Available: http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/law-essentials/resources/carlillvcarbol.pdf. Last accessed 24th Nov 2011.
Mitchell, A (2009). AS LAW. 3rd ed. Cornwall: Cavendish Publishing Limited. p.334.
Staff of legal max. (nd). Stevenson, Jaques, & Co v McLean. Available: http://www.legalmax.info/members2/conbook/stevenso.htm. Last accessed 26th Nov 2011.
Mitchell, A (2009). AS LAW. 3rd ed. Cornwall: Cavendish Publishing Limited. p.329.
Staff of Case Briefs. (nd). Adams v. Lindsell. Available: http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/contracts/contracts-keyed-to-murphy/the-bargain-relationship/adams-v-lindsell/. Last accessed 27th Nov 2011.
Law Teacher Staff. (nd). Adams v Lindsell | Contract Law Case. Available: http://www.lawteacher.net/contract-law/cases/adams-v-lindsell.php. Last accessed 26th Nov 2011.
Staff of fortunecity.com. (nd). Contract Formation - Offer and Acceptance. Available: http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/delacroix/81/conform.htm. Last accessed 22th Nov 2011.