This is an extract of our Communication Of Acceptance document, which we sell as part of our Contract Law Notes collection written by the top tier of University Of Ottawa students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Contract Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
THEME 10: COMMUNICATION OF ACCEPTANCE
Acceptance By Fact 1) Did the offeror stipulate the conditions of the acceptance?
2) Was there a communication of acceptance?
3) Did the acceptance fit the offer?
If the offeror does not stipulate a particular manner of acceptance, the offeree only accepts in a manner that is thought to be reasonable. Some offerees responding to offers stipulating written acceptance have been allowed to follow by other means. Depends on nature of circumstances and legislation. Generally, the rule is that acceptance is received where and when it is heard. This depends on whether the communication was instantaneous or non instantaneous.
*Court is clear about not specifically saying which rule will always prevail. Depends on mode of communication (this may depend on relevant legislation).
Household Fire and Carriage Accident Insurance CO v Grant (1879)
DEFAULT RULE: Postal acceptance rule for non instantaneous communication militates that communication of acceptance occurs at the time the letter is posted whether or not it's received.
*she who acts for another acts for themselves (postal office being the agent)
- DF gave agent application in writing for shares in PL's company
- PL attempted acceptance by letter, but never arrived
Majority (Thesiger): must be meeting of the minds and mutual communication
- post office is common agent between two (court creates legal fiction); parties anticipated that method was done by post Dissent (Bramwell); no specification of post as method; sender should have ensured arrival
- PL posted letter to DF indicating that it intended to buy property of DF
- DF never received letter
- the contract says that exercise of the option requires notification in writing, so postal rule cannot apply from Household case
- in writing could mean many things, but it was deemed non instantaneous
- contract created when acceptance
MAILED ACCEPTANCE I: Was acceptance delivered? Question of risk bearing. D: in favour of PL, yes.
Holwell Securities v Hughes LOST LETTER I: did PL exercise option to purchase premises by posting letter to DF that was never received?
D: appeal dismissed Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Und 1983
Postal rule does not apply if post is not stipulated as form of acceptance. If terms of acceptance ambiguous, court will apply contra pro forentum.
- Appellants (Brinkabon) suing
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Contract Law Notes.