R
ac
commu
Held: Buckley LJ held that the co
since the stipulated method as soo
was intended to benefit the Facts: offer letter delayed
posted
offeree, the offeror could For reasons of because the offeror
reach
waive compliance with this if certainty and business misdirected the letter.
the method was no less convenience Acceptance consequently
advantageous to the offeror delayed and the goods
had already been sold
when acceptaance
reached the offeror
Common law takes a
Facts: offeror required that offeree's strongly objective
acceptance letter be sent to the approach
particular address. Intention was to
ensure that there was a binding
acceptance on posting to prescribed
address. Offeree sent letter to offeror's
surveyor instead of specified address
The postal rule deals with
how rules on offer &
Therefore convenient that the Manchester Diocesan Council for acceptance should be
acceptor, being in the better Education v Commercial & applied where the
position, should have the General Investments Ltd acceptance is sent by post
responsibility of ensuring and the inevitable delay
that his message is recieved between posting and receipt Adams v Lindsell
Offeror will not know if
an unsuccessful attempt
has been made to send
an acceptance to him
In ordinary case, actual Offeree who tries to send a
communication is required and message by telex can
the postal rule does not apply,
generally tell if his message
but general rule will not cover all
the many variations that may
has not been received on
occur with telex messages the other party's (the
offeror's machine)
Contracts made through
the post
No universal rule for such
cases due to the complexity
of communication methods
General principle: If offeree has Where an acceptance is
done all he might reasonably be instantaneous actual
expected to do to get his message communication is required
through - acceptance should take and the postal rule does not
effect when offeree might apply (see: Brinkibon)
reasonably expect it to be
H
communicated to the offeror
Telex acceptance sent Henthorn v Fraser
London to Vienna, Major goal of the
English company could postal rule is to Think of the preceding
claim for breach of ensure fairness and cases in terms of risk -
Held: contract had been courts recognize that
concluded where telex contract if the contract certainty in business Held: option had not
was made in England transactions communication is a
acceptance had been been validly exercised
fraught process
ac
commu
Held: Buckley LJ held that the co
since the stipulated method as soo
was intended to benefit the Facts: offer letter delayed
posted
offeree, the offeror could For reasons of because the offeror
reach
waive compliance with this if certainty and business misdirected the letter.
the method was no less convenience Acceptance consequently
advantageous to the offeror delayed and the goods
had already been sold
when acceptaance
reached the offeror
Common law takes a
Facts: offeror required that offeree's strongly objective
acceptance letter be sent to the approach
particular address. Intention was to
ensure that there was a binding
acceptance on posting to prescribed
address. Offeree sent letter to offeror's
surveyor instead of specified address
The postal rule deals with
how rules on offer &
Therefore convenient that the Manchester Diocesan Council for acceptance should be
acceptor, being in the better Education v Commercial & applied where the
position, should have the General Investments Ltd acceptance is sent by post
responsibility of ensuring and the inevitable delay
that his message is recieved between posting and receipt Adams v Lindsell
Offeror will not know if
an unsuccessful attempt
has been made to send
an acceptance to him
In ordinary case, actual Offeree who tries to send a
communication is required and message by telex can
the postal rule does not apply,
generally tell if his message
but general rule will not cover all
the many variations that may
has not been received on
occur with telex messages the other party's (the
offeror's machine)
Contracts made through
the post
No universal rule for such
cases due to the complexity
of communication methods
General principle: If offeree has Where an acceptance is
done all he might reasonably be instantaneous actual
expected to do to get his message communication is required
through - acceptance should take and the postal rule does not
effect when offeree might apply (see: Brinkibon)
reasonably expect it to be
H
communicated to the offeror
Telex acceptance sent Henthorn v Fraser
London to Vienna, Major goal of the
English company could postal rule is to Think of the preceding
claim for breach of ensure fairness and cases in terms of risk -
Held: contract had been courts recognize that
concluded where telex contract if the contract certainty in business Held: option had not
was made in England transactions communication is a
acceptance had been been validly exercised
fraught process
