Get premium membership and access questions with answers, video lessons as well as revision papers.

Giving illustrations, explain the postal rules that govern offer and acceptance where contracts are communicated and concluded through post.

      

Giving illustrations, explain the postal rules that govern offer and acceptance where
contracts are communicated and concluded through post.

  

Answers


Maurice
Postal rules of acceptance
Where the offeror expressly or by implication authorises the offeree to communicate his
acceptance by post, acceptance is deemed complete when a properly addressed and stamped
letter is posted not withstanding any miscarriage in the course of postage. It is so held in
ByrneV. Van Tienhoven.

In the words of Lindley J in Adams V. Lindsell. “it may be taken a settled that where an offer is
made and accepted by letters sent through the post, the contract is concluded when the letter
accepting the offer is posted even though it never reaches its destination.”

Express authorization
In Adam V. Lindsell the offeror expressly authorized the offeror to use the post. On
Sept 2, 1817 the defendant made an offer the plaintiff to sell a quantify of wood and
required an answer in the “course of the post.” The defendant misdirected letter arrived
on Sept. 5th. The plaintiff accepted the posted letter on the same day. The letter of
acceptance was received by the defendant on Sept. 9th. On sept 8th the defendant sold
the wood to a third party. Question was whether there was a contract between the
parties.

It was held that there was a binding contract between the parties conducted on Sept 5th
and the defendant was liable in damages for breach of contract.

Implied authorization
In Household Fine insurance Co. V. Grant, Grant posted a letter on Sept 30th 1874
offering to buy 100 shares in the plaintiff company. On Oct. 20th 1874 the company
secretary made out of a letter of allotment of 100 shares in favour of Grant and entered
his name in the register of members.

The letter was posted but never reached Grant. Grant refused to take up the shares and
was sued by the company for the amount due on the shares. Grant argued that he was
not a member since his offer had not been accepted. However, it was held that he was
liable as a binding contract came into existence when the letter of allotment was posted
to him.
A similar holding was made in Henthorn V. Fraser.?
maurice.mutuku answered the question on April 27, 2018 at 11:40


Next: Briefly explain how industrialization has contributed to the following: (a) Diversification of the economy (b) Fostering good international relations. (c) Formation of cooperative societies. (d) Growth of...
Previous: Saida planned to stage a big band concert and engaged a number of eminent musicians. She paid each musician 10% of the agreed fee at the...

View More CPA Commercial Law Questions and Answers | Return to Questions Index


Learn High School English on YouTube

Related Questions