Contract: Postal acceptance rule (1 Viewer)

[Demandred]

When it says "contact me by Sunday 12am about your test results" does it mean that the reciever must be notified of your test results by that date? Or is it sufficient to simply send them a mail before that time, even though it won't get there in time?

Also, is there something like a reasonable element to it? The main authorities are Adams v Lindsell, Tallerman & Co Pty Ltd v Nathan's Merchandise and Bressan Squires. None of these mention anything about reasonabless, all I have to do is pop the mail in the mail box and its done.

What if I was living in neighbour hood where the post office people gets shot while collecting the mail and decided they should only do it once a year ? It's unreasonable, but hey, under these authorities, it looks fine.

 

[hfis]

Re: Contract law - mail postal acceptance rule

If it was within the reasonable foresight of the parties that post might be used in the course of communications, then the postal acceptance rule applies regardless of the circumstances, unless it was expressly stated by the offeror that it did not apply (ie; there is a clause saying "acceptance must be received by..." or "acceptance may not be communicated by post"). I haven't seen any authority suggesting otherwise, only some which stretch/inhibit the rule as it applies to other more modern forms of 'post' such as email.

Edit: Oh yeah, forgot to add that it only applies in matters of contract (duh). If you're referring to an academic request - as you seem to be from what little you've given us - I doubt that the lecturer/faculty (including/especially the faculty of law) would give two shits about applying a legal doctrine to it, and would rather adopt a "must be received by" approach.

 

[Frigid]

Re: Contract law - mail postal acceptance rule

When it says "contact me by Sunday 12am about your test results" does it mean that the reciever must be notified of your test results by that date? Or is it sufficient to simply send them a mail before that time, even though it won't get there in time?

forgive me for asking the obvious, but how this is a contractual offer in the first place?

 

[Demandred]

Re: Contract law - mail postal acceptance rule

Hey hfis, yep, I was referring to Bressn v Squires, terms of the contract can displace the postal rule. Do you think the rule has been displaced by saying 'contact me by?'

It's just one of the terms Frigid

Please! someone enlighten me with an authority.

Household Fire and Carriage Accident Issurance Co Ltd v Grant says as soon as its tossed into the mail box, thats it, it doesn't matter if its lost, destroyed, arrives late or whatever...

But that doesn't sound right...

 

[hfis]

Re: Contract law - mail postal acceptance rule

I would not say that merely stating 'contact me by' in the terms would invalidate any acceptance made by post.

'If an offeror intends that he shall be bound only if his offer is accepted in some particular manner, it must be for him to make this clear.'
Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General Investments Ltd [1970] 1 WLR 241, 246 (Buckley J)

The clause under consideration in the above case was much 'clearer' than what you have provided, and as the Court did not accept it, I would doubt that anything less would be accepted either.

Therefore, if the offeror has not prescribed a particular mode of acceptance outside of the postal system, and it was within the contemplation of the parties that post may be used, it seems sound in law that the postal acceptance rule would apply. A quick glance of my contract casebook doesn't seem to provide any contra authority.

 

[Angel45]

Re: Contract law - mail postal acceptance rule

LOL.. sounds familiar!!

Hehe.. I think because the offeror can stipulate when they want acceptance they bare the burden - if it gets lost, if a person puts it into a red letterbox which says delivery may be delayed - if it gets lost or doesn't arrive by the due date.

 

[Demandred]

Re: Contract law - mail postal acceptance rule

Cheers!

 

[Rorix]

Also, is there something like a reasonable element to it?

Only that the rule does not apply where it would produce manifest inconvience and absurdity: see Bressan.

 

[Omnidragon]

The offeror can stipulate the mode of acceptance.

I'm of the opinion that you can only accept the offer (whatever it was, since it was not made clear in your question) by contacting the offeror via the way he said... since he said nothing, you can do whatever you want.

Just generally speaking, if a mode of contact is not stipulated, then the acceptance is deemed to occur when it comes to the attention of the offeror. If a mode of acceptance is stipulated, then acceptance is deemed to have occured when the communication enters the system (Electronic Communications Act).

So the problem here might be... if you send a post and it doesn't come to his attention before 12pm, what happens? Are you deemed to have accepted? I don't think that would be the case.

Edit: This time element... it might boil down to a question of whether it's a condition of performance or formation?

 

[Baiku]

Bit of an error -

As I understand it, if the method of communication is not specified, the method of communication of acceptance must be a method equal to in speed or FASTER than the method used in negotiations for that contract.

For example, if you discuss the contract by Fax - mail would not be an acceptable mode of communication of acceptance.

For the current situation - I think postal rule only applies with DATES, as the time that the mail-man delivers the mail is variable.

If it says, must be received by 12pm, then the offeree should deliver the acceptance to the offeror's before 12pm that day.

The postal rule cannot apply to a certain time in the manner you have suggested (in my opinion).

 

[hfis]

As I understand it, if the method of communication is not specified, the method of communication of acceptance must be a method equal to in speed or FASTER than the method used in negotiations for that contract.

Say what? I'll have to ask for some authority for that, as I don't recall ever learning it.

 

[Vahl]

The offeror can stipulate the mode of acceptance.

I'm of the opinion that you can only accept the offer (whatever it was, since it was not made clear in your question) by contacting the offeror via the way he said... since he said nothing, you can do whatever you want.

Just generally speaking, if a mode of contact is not stipulated, then the acceptance is deemed to occur when it comes to the attention of the offeror. If a mode of acceptance is stipulated, then acceptance is deemed to have occured when the communication enters the system (Electronic Communications Act).

So the problem here might be... if you send a post and it doesn't come to his attention before 12pm, what happens? Are you deemed to have accepted? I don't think that would be the case.

Edit: This time element... it might boil down to a question of whether it's a condition of performance or formation?

I disagree, It is my understanding that except where otherwise stated, you must reply to an offer in the mode in which you receive it, unless other contact details are displayed which implies that you can respond through those means, where a means is not stipulated

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I disagree, It is my understanding that except where otherwise stated, you must reply to an offer in the mode in which you receive it, unless other contact details are displayed which implies that you can respond through those means, where a means is not stipulated

No I don't think that is the case.

Yes, an offeror can prescribe the method of acceptance. However where there is no express or implied intention to make the method exclusive, an alternative method of acceptance which is as prompt, and no less advantageous to the offeror than the stated manner, may be used: Tinn v Hoffman & Co (1873) (offer requesting reply by return of post merely indicated requirement of prompt reply and did not imply that acceptance by other means was invalid so that acceptance by telegram was effective); George Hudson Holdings Ltd v Rudder (1973) 128 CLR 387; (offer to sell shares which did not stipulate for acceptance by post validly accepted by personal delivery of acceptance). [Casebase lists a number of other authorities here but these are the clearest.]

So the position is not that by default you cannot reply by another means. Rather it is that you can, unless it is implied (or expressly stated) that you cannot.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

As I understand it, if the method of communication is not specified, the method of communication of acceptance must be a method equal to in speed or FASTER than the method used in negotiations for that contract.

Say what? I'll have to ask for some authority for that, as I don't recall ever learning it.

Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v. Commercial & General Investments Ltd [1970] 1 W.L.R. 241, at pp. 245, 246, per Buckley J:

"Where, however, the offeror has prescribed a particular method of acceptance, but not in terms insisting that only acceptance in that mode shall be binding, I am of opinion that acceptance communicated to the offeror by any other mode which is no less advantageous to him will conclude the contract." (Emph.)

Thus I think he was half-correct. The advantage consideration is relevant where the method of acceptance is specified.

 

[Demandred]

I got it, lol had to read through all of Bressan and Hughs Investment case, I handed it in already today. Mind the lack of citation formating... too tired .

 

[Baiku]

Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v. Commercial & General Investments Ltd [1970] 1 W.L.R. 241, at pp. 245, 246, per Buckley J:

"Where, however, the offeror has prescribed a particular method of acceptance, but not in terms insisting that only acceptance in that mode shall be binding, I am of opinion that acceptance communicated to the offeror by any other mode which is no less advantageous to him will conclude the contract." (Emph.)

Thus I think he was half-correct. The advantage consideration is relevant where the method of acceptance is specified.

Yes, I think you're more better at it

However, if a contract is being negotiated by fax and an offer is made by fax, would it be acceptable to all of a sudden change the method of communication and send an acceptance by mail? I'm not sure...