Contracts - acceptance - prompt message handling? (1 Viewer)

[dissipate]

can anyone think of any contracts cases that show it's the responsibility of recipients to ensure prompt handling of messages in the office during office hours?

 

[Soma]

Re: Contracts - acceptance

You are obviously just giving us your specific question.

The challenge (and fun) in law arises out of trying to fit specific fact situations into accepted principles of law.

Your question is really unclear. The recipient of what? An offer, acceptance?

 

[dissipate]

Re: Contracts - acceptance

hmm sorry. the recipient of an acceptance. i have a situation where an acceptance was sent to the office of the offeror during office hours, but no one read it, and the offer was revoked shortly after. and i'm trying to find a case which supports the principle (?) that the message arrived during their office hours so they should have read it.

 

[Soma]

Re: Contracts - acceptance

Postal Rule Funk!

 

[dissipate]

Re: Contracts - acceptance

heh..nevermind i've found a case

 

[mr EaZy]

Re: Contracts - acceptance

hmm sorry. the recipient of an acceptance. i have a situation where an acceptance was sent to the office of the offeror during office hours, but no one read it, and the offer was revoked shortly after. and i'm trying to find a case which supports the principle (?) that the message arrived during their office hours so they should have read it.

you need actual communication of the acceptance so it needs to be delivered and read

if ur sending the offer by post- the postal rule would mean that the other party has read it the moment u've sent it in the mail.

if they didnt read the acceptance; tough luck

unless you actually found a case that says im wrong?

 

[Rorix]

Re: Contracts - acceptance

you need actual communication of the acceptance so it needs to be delivered and read

if ur sending the offer by post- the postal rule would mean that the other party has read it the moment u've sent it in the mail.

if they didnt read the acceptance; tough luck

unless you actually found a case that says im wrong?

What you say is, with great respect, ridiculous! Especially the bit about "if they didnt read the acceptance; tough luck".

To the original thread starter, the case of Brinkibon v Stahag (some company with a ridiculously long name), it's a UKHL case about telex and the postal acceptance rule, from memory one of the judges holds that where there is an acceptance sent by telex from one party's office to the other party's office, that should be treated as instantenous communication between the principals. It is the responsibility of the recieving party to ensure that messages to him are prompty delivered within his own office.

 

[mr EaZy]

Re: Contracts - acceptance

What you say is, with great respect, ridiculous! Especially the bit about "if they didnt read the acceptance; tough luck".

Yeah true

i contradicted myself there

whether you read the acceptance or not is irrelevant- the point is that the contract was formed when the letter was posted- i dont know what i was going on about- i think i was referring to the revocation letter- that needs to be actually communicated

See, for example, Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tienhoven & Co (1880) 5 CPD 344; 42 LT 371, Lindley J (defendants’ offer of supply accepted by plaintiff’s telegram and letter, both sent prior to receipt of defendants’ letter of revocation posted prior to acceptance). See also Stevenson Jaques & Co v McLean (1880) 5 QBD 346; Re Scottish Petroleum Co (Maclagan’s Case) (1883) 23 Ch D 413; Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27.

 

[mr EaZy]

Re: Contracts - acceptance

What you say is, with great respect, ridiculous! Especially the bit about "if they didnt read the acceptance; tough luck".

The contract is made when the acceptance is posted

so its irrelevant if you read the acceptance letter or not

in other words

if you didnt read the acceptance letter from the offeree: then tough luck - you cant claim ignorance to revoke an offer when the agreement was done

i think im right there- wats the ridiculous part about it?

"Thus, unless the offeree received the letter of revocation before posting an acceptance, a person who has accepted an offer not known to have been withdrawn may act on the basis that a contract binding on both parties has been formed"

Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tienhoven & Co (1880)

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Re: Contracts - acceptance

The contract is made when the acceptance is posted

so its irrelevant if you read the acceptance letter or not

in other words

if you didnt read the acceptance letter from the offeree: then tough luck - you cant claim ignorance to revoke an offer when the agreement was done

i think im right there- wats the ridiculous part about it?

"Thus, unless the offeree received the letter of revocation before posting an acceptance, a person who has accepted an offer not known to have been withdrawn may act on the basis that a contract binding on both parties has been formed"

Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tienhoven & Co (1880)

Yes, that's right.

You're not doing UNSW mooting by any chance, mr EaZy?

 

[Rorix]

Re: Contracts - acceptance

i think im right there- wats the ridiculous part about it?

You said

you need actual communication of the acceptance so it needs to be delivered and read

if ur sending the offer by post- the postal rule would mean that the other party has read it the moment u've sent it in the mail.

if they didnt read the acceptance; tough luck

Given the thread was about prompt handling of messages, I understood you as saying "you need actual communication of the acceptance so it needs to be delivered and read...if they didnt read the acceptance; tough luck", given most people if referring to the second would say "if it wasn't delivered" etc.

But of course if the postal rule applies whether or not acceptance was read or even delivered is irrelevant.