Transcript
Page 1: The Justifications of the Postal Acceptance Rule

The Justifications of the Postal Acceptance Rule

Post rules acceptance for the first time had been founded in case of court of Adams

Adams v Lindsell, when the court should solve an instant of the conclusion of the contract by

mail. The court had established, that parties at dialogue of acceptance by mail had not been

assured of an exact times of acceptance had been informed.

As to a mail service is a subject to delays, parties cannot be at same instant known about

communication. It had created a number of problems and had led to development of rules.

This rule it is accepted in a general law of legal systems: "If circumstances are those, that it

should be within the limits of contemplation of sides, that, according to usual customs of

mankind, the message for accepting offer maybe used as means of dialogue, acceptance is full,

no sooner did it is placed". (Dave Scott, 1999)

Uncertainty concerning an instant conclusion of the contract does not occur in the

environment face to face communications or even on distance agreeing where instant the way of

communication is used.

In such contracts, parties know all about the conclusion of the contract, and they do not

collide from problem questions, such as delay or default of transfer which occur in not the instant

communications.

As opposed to it, Adams v Lindsell, accepted rules to avoid "Extreme and naughty"

consequence which can follow if considered, that offer maybe cancelled at any time up to the

offeree was in position " it accepts in fact has been received ". (Gibson, 2003)

This justification for post is corrected represented, provides the best decision in

definition of time, that parties have reached a consensus of item of announcements and has been

offered opinion, that at the moment of accommodation the letter, there will not be more chances

of assembly of minds places, than during more recent time when the letter has been delivered.

Page 2: The Justifications of the Postal Acceptance Rule

Other reason was it has been suggested for action of such law, that offeror should be considered

as proposed during all time that its offer in a position, and that, consequently, the agreement

between parties is full no sooner did acceptance is published.

This idea depends on the assumption, that said offer creates force which connects both

sides and that the recognition is realization of this authority. Consequently, offeror in the

beginning has full power to define actions which should represent recognition.

However, after оfferor decides for determination, a legal consequence goes out from its

hands, because the offeree, by virtue of and offers has advantage above offeror during formation

of the contract. Offeree probably requires additional time is required to solve, if really necessary

for accepting this offer for this time, probably maybe necessary to spend money and effort in

achievement to the decision.

Few people go ahead including post office, as the agent of offeror. Thesiger LJ have

offered agencies as a foundation of this law as it approved: ”As then these elements of the

legislation, a subject of coordination in case of contracts are shaped on correspondence by mail?

I do not see the best mode, than treatment of post office as the agent of both sides”. (Gibson,

2003)

(In the same place) This argument does not strike root literatures as mail and telegrams of

the company are not obvious agents, which acceptances can be passed, in particular, as well

known that mail, as the governmental agency on the public service, working under its own rules

never maybe the agent in this area.

Besides letters are always sealed, when are placed, thus, a content of the sealed letter,

cannot really tell, have been finished to post office, which in any case no more than means for

transfer acceptance, instead of on its reception. Simple delivery of letters by mail, in itself does

not full obligation of contract.

Page 3: The Justifications of the Postal Acceptance Rule

In fact, it is possible to explain that the rule is effective as it realizes as business of

convenience of the offeree and fair distribution of risks as it establishes final date of the contract

and avoids circular communication.

Any delay which occurs between passing and accepting to the message of letters creates

potential risk for both sides because of uncertainty concerning is precious, when the message is

considered received. Such background can be considered as a corner stone for application post

corrected acceptances.

Leaning on the conclusions of the contract in registration or the sending, established

certain time for confirming between sides if they ask about it, without any further messages. It

can be understood as it concludes, that “courts in application for post objective rule to result a

background of an indispensability and predict, that if the contract was to come into force, it

maybe the best way reached on sending of acceptance” . For example, if offeror asks the notice

offeree owes the notice on reception and so on. (Simone, 2001)

Other way of an illustration of data is shown, if A considered to recognize acceptance

from B then B possess right for receiving notification from A, that reception of acceptance was

received. And thus A possesses the right for receiving notification from B, that notification of

reception of acceptance received.

Carrying out of it to the logical completion, having put risk in hands, offeror is

represented logical as it represents owner of the offer, and it is a possibility for or provide

specific measures to be exposed potential risk.

These traditional justifications were to approve concerning the post contract as it has been

found out above, there is a time interval, and a delay between sending of the letter and to receive

it and both sides are not in a condition, that they can supervise transfer of letters by mail.

Thus, it can approve what if electronic contacting is similar on contacting by mail then

can postal rules be applied to e-mail acceptance?

Page 4: The Justifications of the Postal Acceptance Rule

References

Dave Scott, 1999.“Should the postal acceptance rule be applied to e-mail” www.alsa.asn.au/docs/acj/1996/stott.html, accessed on April 8, 2011.

Gibson, A. & Fraser, D. 2003, Business Law, Pearson Education Australia Pty Ltd, Frenchs Forest, NSW

Gardner, 1992. Trashing with Trollope: A Deconstruction of the Postal Rule in Contract Oxford Journal of Legal Studies.

G.H.Treitel, 1991. The Law of Contract,(8th edn Sweet and Maxwell London ) .

Kathryn O’ Shea and Kylie Skeahan (1997) “Acceptance of offers by E-mail – How Far should the postal Acceptance Rule Extend? “ QUT Law Journal, Vol 13, pp 247-262

Simone W B Hill, 2001. “E-mail contracts –When is the contract formed“ Journal of Law and Information Science, Vol 12, No1, pp. 46-56


Top Related