Law 5110 Lecture Notes - Lecture 20: Posting Rule, Tinn, Fax
Lecture 20
COMMUNICATION OF ACCEPTANCE
Acceptance must be communicated effectively, however, not an absolute rule.
ENTORES
The importance of fault, if you didn’t receive the contract at your own fault the offer can be
barred (estopped).
EG. Telephone, if the offeror does not catch the words of acceptance and does not ask them
to be repeated, the offeror doesn’t know acceptance happened. Offeror may be prevented
by denying the existence of a contract. If the telephone line dies no contract formed, both
parties know acceptance hasn’t gone through, acceptance only happens when they re re-
communicating.
ACCEPTANCE IN UNILATERAL CONTRACTS
Offeror is seeking performance of an act. Performance = Acceptance. Unilateral contracts no
communication needed for acceptance.
PRESCRIBED METHOD OF ACCEPTANCE
If the offeror makes it clear acceptance must happen in a certain way, no other way will be
suffice. No contract if another method is used. EG> Eliason v Henshaw (1819). Acceptance
requested through wagon, it was sent by post, so there is no contract as another method
was used. EG> Yates Building Co v Pulleyn (1975), acceptance by post (any method of post
will suffice as no method was said) = contract.
If there is no prescribed method of acceptance any fine. EG> Tinn v Hoffman (1873).
ACCEPTANCE BY POST
The postal rule – ACCEPTANCE IS MADE AS SOON AS ITS POSTED NOT WHEN IT ARRIVES.
EG> Adams v LINDSELL (1818), claimant’s acceptance when letter posted, defendant’s were
in breach of contract when they sold the wool to a third party. EG> HOUSEHOLD FIRE
INSURANCE V GRANT (1879), contract formed upon the posting of the acceptance.
POSTAL RULE
Limitations
• The letter of acceptance must be properly posted
• The letter must be properly addressed
• EG> Contimar’s case (1953), misaddressed letter cant rely on a rule similar to the
postal rule in contract. Acceptance can still be effective at the time least bad to the
party responsible for misdirection. EG> KORBETIS V TRANSGRAIN SHIPPING (2005).
• It must be reasonable to use the post, HENTHORN V FRASER (1892) , parties lived far
away, postal is good after oral offer.
• Postal rule doesn’t apply to instantaneous, fax, telex, telephone. ENTROES V MILES
FAR EAST CORPN (1955).
• An offer to sell land needs to be in writing, but never arrived, no notice given so
postal rule doesn’t apply and no contract was formed.
Document Summary
Acceptance must be communicated effectively, however, not an absolute rule. The importance of fault, if you didn"t receive the contract at your own fault the offer can be barred (estopped). Telephone, if the offeror does not catch the words of acceptance and does not ask them to be repeated, the offeror doesn"t know acceptance happened. Offeror may be prevented by denying the existence of a contract. If the telephone line dies no contract formed, both parties know acceptance hasn"t gone through, acceptance only happens when they re re- communicating. If the offeror makes it clear acceptance must happen in a certain way, no other way will be suffice. Acceptance requested through wagon, it was sent by post, so there is no contract as another method was used. Eg> yates building co v pulleyn (1975), acceptance by post (any method of post will suffice as no method was said) = contract. If there is no prescribed method of acceptance any fine.
