The paper "Comparison between Postal Acceptances and Email Acceptances, Postal Rule and Australian Court of Law" is a great example of law coursework. Postal rule acceptance is considered to reasonable means of conveyance and the acceptance is considered to be valid when the mail is dropped at the post office and it is postmarked. In most of the cases the mailbox rule is normally used to pay the premium of the insurance and it is considered to be a contract which is acceptable. It was established in 1808 as a legal norm which leads to the formation of the current used modern types of communication e. g.
email. The other alternative names that are used to identify this kind of communication are the postal rule, the posting rule or the postal acceptance rule. The postal acceptance rule holds true for the acceptances. There are some cases whereby it is made obvious that the response should be received by a specific date. For these cases a person cannot wait until the date for the acceptance, it might be rejected because the receiving date will be different from the commitment date. The personal acceptance rule applies when there are documents which are conflicting which have been sent (Watnick 2004, p. 90).
For example, if a person decides that he will reject an offer and later he changes his mind the question that comes in is which one is valid. The postal acceptance rule will rule that the one which is valid is the one that takes precedence unless the rejection reaches before the mailing of the acceptance. The court has also ruled out that a person is not necessarily supposed to receive the acceptance for it to be valid unless the one who sent the acceptance doubts its delivery.
The deal is declared on when a person has delivered the acceptance at the sending office unless there is something that has happened at the office which will affect the delivering of the acceptance e. g. if it rained heavily and mailroom was flooded. Application of Postal Acceptance Rule When the rule was established it was not clear how the communication was supposed to be carried out. The postal communication was experiencing delays and it had to change some of its procedures to be effective.
The postal acceptance rule was incorporated in the common law systems. Where there is uncertainty concerning the formation of the contract the other methods of communication are used. The case of Lindsell v Adams, the rule was adopted for the avoidance of mischievous and extraordinary consequences which could have resulted because of the cancellation of the contract and the argument was that they had received. The postal rule justification helps in the provision of the solution to the parties when they come to the consensus (Robert 2004, p.
56). It was found out that during the posting of the letter there could a better chance for people to come to an agreement than the time of delivery. The other reason why the rule has been found to be valid is that the person who requested for the service is believed to have made a contract when he reached the post and the agreement seems to be there as soon as he leaves the post and the offer is accepted.
There is an assumption that is made that there is a power that binds the two parties and as soon as there is acceptance the power is exercised. The offeror has the power to make suggestions on what will constitute the conditions of acceptance but as soon as the contract is made then he has no more powers to change the terms and conditions and the law is followed. The offeree can require much time to make a decision whether he will accept the offer and he may also spend effort and money to reach a decision.
Some researchers suggested that the post office was being treated by both parties as an agent although the literature did not accept that argument because the telegram company and the post office are not agents through which communications can be made.
Christensen, S 2007, ‘Formation of Contracts by Email – Is it Just the Same as the Post?’
Technology Law & Justice Journal, Vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 56-92.
Dickie, L 2006, ‘When and where are Electronic Contracts Concluded?’ Law journal, Vol.5,
Gardiner, J 2004, the postal rule in contract law and the electronic marvels, current
commercial law vol.8, no.5, pp.65-89
Robert, C 2004, Contract Law in Ireland, Thomson Round Hall, Dublin.
Treitel, G 2001, The Law of Contract, Sweet and Maxwell, London.
Watnick, V, 2004, ‘The Electronic Formation of Contracts and the Common Law “Mailbox Rule”, Baylor Law Review, Vol.8, no.1, pp 75-98.