The Postal Acceptance Rule - Assignment Example

Name: Institution: Topic: The Postal Acceptance Rule Professor: Course: Date: The Postal Acceptance Rule It is defined as a statute of agreement law that creates exclusion to the common rule that states that an approval is only formed if written straightforwardly to the offeror. The postal recognition law pertains to acceptance. When the postal acceptance rule utilized, the contract is created when the letter of acceptance is posted. One underlying principle to the rule is the offeror appoints the post office as suggested organization and therefore reception of confirmation by the post office is taken as the offeree. The posting order's major theme is the possibility of mails being received late or lost in the process. This is usually the offeror’s responsibility. Incase the offeror does not want to be accountable for the loss, he or she can expect as a requirement before being legally bound. On the other hand, in the event an offeree sends a denial and changes his mind either communications is received by the offeror initial leverage. The postal acceptance procedure was stated initially in the Adams vs. Lindsell case 1818. The postal acceptance rule applies when there must be a reasonable expectation that the post would be used as an appropriate method of delivering the approval. The reason behind the approach regarded as rebuttable would seem to have been resulting as follows. The postal acceptance procedure was based on considering the post office as a representative of one or both parties as stated in Grant’s case 1879. According to Lord Thesiger, the post office is a unifying agent. Based on this, the contract is sealed as soon as the letter of recognition is received. The agreement in this case is complete as though there was a messenger involved in the process. In contradiction, the postal acceptance rule communicated using primary or almost direct resources such as telephones; telex and fax are formed when the offeror receives the consent. These resources are equal to face to face communications; most probably both parties will be aware of any break in the link and will be able to use the necessary action. There is little case law on submission by electronic message. On the other hand, some cases demonstrate the general rule is that the acceptance must be received by the offeror and that the postal rule is only a tiny expectation. However, the receipt of electronic messages may not be abrupt and since the postal act has been extended to telegram it could be argued that it should be extended to email. Though some electronic message systems like personal EDI networks provide almost instantaneous broadcast, anecdotal evidence suggest that email is inconsistent and could take minutes, hours or even days to reach its destination. The other grounds for postal like protocol for email is the offeror plays a role in delivering. On the other hand, telexes and faxes are received at the recipient’s location almost immediately after they are sent, some email systems use mail servers operated by third parties whom are not located at the recipient’s domain. Still after receipt by the mail server, the recipient has to add to their mailbox on the mail server before the completion of the communication. Given that the offeror is partly responsible for ensuring delivery, it may not be appropriate to allocate the entire risk in the delivery of email to the offeree. The postal acceptance regulation considers a contract to be requisite at the moment the approval is posted and ultimately received. The nature of the postal message implies a grouping of participants not only through time but also space. At the moment an individual sends a message through post, there is no holdup between post and reception. The postal acceptance rule is legal because it views that notification of acceptance has occurred while the facts show it has not. It has been limited to just two techniques of communication. These are telegram and post. Courts have constantly overruled the possibility of extending the regulation to other techniques of communications including telephone, telex and face to face. The result of applying the rule to email negotiations is thus a contract would be formed as a result of an offeree press send than when the offeror receives the acceptance. However, the contract simply depends on when the recognition was sent. There is no support of the postal acceptance law being applicable to electronic mail. In actual sense, there is no holdup between mail posting and delivery. The method of contact is more suitably viewed as instant and has to relate to regulations of virtually immediate communications. As such, the contract is only viable and binding when approval is received by the offeror (Poole, 2008, p.98). The instant messaging rule is assurance to the law of ordinary communication that configuration of an agreement happens at a specific period. This contact regulation is not the postal acceptance law applicable to other instant methods like telephone, telex, and face to face. The postal acceptance rule can be justified when the sender losses control over the communication during posting. When a person posts a letter, once it is in the mail box, it can not be retrieved or trace when lost. In email communications, the sender does not loss control of the communication while sending. In contradiction of post, the best individual that knows if there is a problem with the communication is the sender. The postal acceptance rule can be applied in the Australian contract law because of the following reasons. The first prerequisite for a legitimate deal is conformity. This comprises of an offer and acceptance between two or more parties. According to the contract law there is no specific form needed to represent an offer. An offer is a means of communiqué. A promise to do something or not. If the person to whom the offer is directed does something or refrains or makes a promise in return, the offer must be distinguished from an invitation to deal. Acceptance is an unequivocal statement oral, written or conduct by the offeree agreeing to offer. An offer may only be accepted by the individual it is directed and to constitute a valid acceptance this must occur in response to the offer. It is sufficient if the offer was one of the reasons, for the offeree to act in the manner he did regardless of the rationale behind his action, no particular way of acceptance is required. In Empirnall, the court stated that “whether a bystander would regard the conduct of the offeree, including his silence as a signaling to the offeror that his offer has been accepted,” the Postal acceptance rule can be used as a means of acceptance in the contract law. To be effective, there should be communication of acceptance. The general rule is an agreement is concluded when and where communication is acceptance is received in relation to instant methods of communication acceptance is termed to be received when it is given to the offeror even if they do not read it. In the situation where post is used as the postal rule applies, provided that post is contemplated by the parties acceptance occurs when and where the letter is posted. If a particular form for acceptance is made necessary, to be effective, acceptance must take its form. On the other hand, the courts will be slow to conclude a specific form is necessary unless clear language is used to effect. In a situation that the language is not clearly used, a fast and effective method of communication will usually be held to be adequate. Exceptions to the postal rule are to operate in specific situations. Example in the Quenerdurine vs. Cole case 1883, the court ruled that an offer made by telegram should imply that acceptance must be communicated quickly. The postal rule applies to revocations like the Byrne and Co vs. Van Tienhoven and Co 1880. The courts confirmed the idea that any revocation of an offer should be communicated to the offeree, but there are some exceptions in this rule. The offeror need to communicate this revocation to the offeree himself. Nevertheless, it is not always practical for a firm, or a person to communicate directly with the other party. This is seen in the case of the Dickinson vs. Dodds 1876. The revocation may be communicated by a dependable third party (Latimer, 1988, p.46 ) In the case of Household Fire & Carriage Accident Insurance Co vs. Grant 1879, the court ruled that the postal rule only applies to acceptance because revocation is only effective when it can be received by the offeree before posting the acceptance. In the contract law, the offeror has knowledge of the terms of an offer before the offeree and hence is in a better position in knowing when the contract may be developed. It would; however, be prejudice the offeree if the offeror were able to withdraw their offer even after the letter of acceptance has been posted. The postal rule reflects these affairs and to some extent path way to balancing the power levels between the two parties. In order for an acceptance to be valid and bind a contract, the following should be considered the acceptance must be communicated to the offeree, the terms of the acceptance must exactly match the terms of the offer and the agreement must be sure. The vast technology has some how affected the postal rule because they are new and faster methods of communication as the world evolves. On the other hand, some methods should be restricted, and others expanded because of various reasons. They are means of communication like telefax, telephone, telegram and internet. In some methods of communication, the postal rule is not applied because at times the individual that is offered the contract is not the one whom accepts or it may take a longer period. The modern technology should be expanded this is because an individual can do a follow up and find out if it has reached the person that they have made an offer such a mode of communication is like email, telegram and telephone where a person can get a direct response. The modern communication methods have greater advantages than the postal method such as fast and dependable. In the email form of communication, there is no indication of the postal rule being applied. In some means of modern communication, postal rule is not applicable. That is, the acceptance is fulfilled once the acceptance letter is received. However, this is not applicable in the email form of communication because it may take for the individual receiving the offer to get it. On the other hand, the postal rule states that the communication of the acceptance should be fast this is shown in the modern technology like telegram and telex that are fast and efficient hence the modern technology should be expanded. The postal acceptance rule has been in existence for a extraordinarily long time since the 1880’s and earlier as seen in some case studies like the Dickinson vs. Dodds 1875 and Byrne & Co vs. Tienhoven 1880 cases just to name a few. Though in the modern century that is 20th and currently the postal rule has being affected because of the vast growing of technology that is changing rapidly. Most people use modern technologies like telefax, telegram, telephone and email, which are more efficient. However, in some modes of communication, the postal rule is not carried out. The major rule of contract law is that acceptance takes place when communicated. The postal rule, on the other hand, states that acceptance is perfect when a letter is posted that is when it is in the mailbox. The modern technology may also extend the postal rule to encompass email. A few courts have held that the postal rule should be extended to cover all technologies by which it is a commercial communication may reasonably be conducted. The focus should be reasonable. The postal rule should be included in the modern technology of email. This is because, in the modern world, almost everyone has a computer and email is considered as an effective mode of communication. I addition, it is frequently used by many people. On the other hand before the email can be used they should be an establishment that the two parties communicating through email are parties whom may enter into a contract. It would be reasonable if they communicated through email before the acceptance through the email. This would hold the truth and make matters easier for the sender that has a date stamp of his sent an email that is normally in the sent box if argued that it was never sent. This does not make it harder for individuals whom accept but latter want to change after as emails provides an almost instant delivery this shows that under the postal rule the first form of communication that the other party receives would be valid. Technology also has its disadvantages compared to the postal. In the postal, an individual can estimate when the letter was sent, and it is the responsibility of the sender to follow up the mail to reach the specified period. While email has the contingency of been sent and received almost instantly. One can argue that if a response was not received through email, then it was possibly not given the right of due process. The access of the internet is extremely unpredictable to hold the sender accountable. The modern technology has developed a new electronic world without borders. The modern computer technology, communication devices and interactive networks like the internet which can link up people in any part of the globe, globalization and international trade have never being extremely convenient. The changes in the way commerce is done have placed greater dependence on technology. The postal acceptance rule is an exception that allows acceptance to remain effective even if it is not communicated to offer when the acceptance is sent via post. Its introduction was on the 19th century. The vast advance in telecommunication it is not particularly popular for parties to agree that acceptance should be sent by post. This has also led to the establishment of new legislation that is enacted for modern communication. An email message is entrusted to internet service providers that convey the information the sent email will be stored in the inbox of an email service, and it is retrieved by the addressees. The postal acceptance rule has served us during the period of the postal services. Bibliography: Poole J, 2008, Casebook on Contract Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press Turner C, 2005, Key Facts Contract Law, Abingdon, Hodder Arnold Publishers Monahan G, 2001, Essential Contract Law, London, Routledge Publishers Sharrock R , 1999 , Business Transaction Law ,Cape Town , Juta & Co Publishers Latimer P , 1988, Australian Business La , Sydney, CCH Australia Ltd Poole J & Furmston M, 2011, Contract Formation Law & Practice, Oxford, Oxford University Press Persadie N & Ramlogan Rajendra, 2010, Commonwealth Business Law, New Jersey, Taylor & Francis Davis’ J 1987, The Law Of Contract, New York, Law Book Co Publishers. Collins H, 2009, The Law Of Contract, New York, Law Book Co Publishers. Gillies P, 2004, Business Law, St Melbourne, Federation Press. Read More