Jennifer and the Wine Merchants - Assignment Example

With regard to Jennifer and the Wine Merchant case scenario, the Wine Merchant is the offerer, as the company makes an offer of consignment of French wine to Jennifer and Maggie. The two who are the recipients of the stated offer are the “offerees.” Jennifer accepts the offer and sends her consignment letter through the post office, while Maggie sends her acceptance communication through the fax. The decision to accept the offer creates a binding agreement between the both Maggie and Jennifer and the Wine Merchant (Ruff 2007).

However, Jennifer’s acceptance letter delays for seven days due to strike, this complicates the issue as she had to send the acceptance within 5 days. Maggie however sends her acceptance through fax and its is received immediately, and consequently accepted (Riches and Vida 2011). Jennifer’s Case Jennifer’s case invites three fundamental questions. First, did Jeniffer, the offeree, miss the specified deadline as stipulated by the Wine Merchant, the offerer. Second, is it possible for the offerer to cancel the acceptance letter between the time the offeree sends it sent and the time the offerer receives it?

Lastly, did the offeror make the offer by mail? Thus in Jennifer and the Wine Merchant’s case scenario, there are at least four probable answers. First, when the offereer accepts the offer; When the offeree sends (posts) the acceptance letter; When the offerer received the letter of acceptance; When the offeror is aware of the acceptance. The most significant reactions are the first and the fourth one, which depict “offer” and “acceptance.” The English Law provides that a binding agreement exists if an offer and acceptance, in which case the offeree accepts an offer made by the offerer.

Concerning Jenniffer and the Merchant’s case scenario, the English Law suggests the emission theory in the “postal rule”. However, its manifestation is also limited. In this way, it only becomes applicable when it was reasonable enough that the offeree uses post as the means of accepting the offer, and whether the acceptance letter was posted properly and whether it didn’t create “manifest absurdity and inconvenience.” Maggie’s Case Unlike Jennifer, Maggie sent her acceptance letter through the fax.

Maggie’s acceptance was accepted. Maggie’s case is different from Jennifer as they used different media to communicate their acceptance. According to the English Law, if an offer is accepted by fax, it will be deemed as accepted as the offerer’s fax machines prints it out, regardless of whether there is someone to receive it or not. Posting statute does not affect to acceptances by instant forms of communication such as fax or telephone. In the case “Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 QB 327, the court decided that the posting rule doesn’t apply to acceptances by telex as it is an instant form of communication” (Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955]).

Thus the principle that acceptances occur once communicated apply can be applied to instant communication forms. Wine Merchant’s case Indeed, the Wine Merchant can be argued as having sent Maggie and Jennifer an offer and not an invitation. The law interprets invitation and offer differently. An invitation, unlike an offer, indicates an individual’s willingness to negotiate a contract. It can be defined as a communication of a pre-offer. In the case Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] 1