Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The Postal Acceptance RuleIt 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.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us