The paper "First Principles of Business Law Interactive Tutorials " is a great example of a business assignment. The issue that arises from the scenario is; whether Sally accepted Peter’ s counter offer. As a rule, the offeree must communicate his/her acceptance to the offeror (Lambiris, 2012). It is not effective if it is uncommunicated. Consequently, a valid agreement cannot be said to exist between the persons concerned. If the offeror stipulates how the acceptance is to be communicated, this must be followed. The acceptance will not be effective if it does not follow these stipulations (Lambiris, 2012).
These stipulations may be as to the form, time or means of communicating the acceptance. If the parties use instantaneous means of communication, then communication is considered effective when it is sent (Lambiris, 2012). The recipient will be considered to have received the communication the moment it is sent. Communication of acceptance electronically is governed by S. 13 of the Electronic Transactions (Victoria) Act (2000). It stipulates that acceptance is effective when an email of acceptance is sent. However, both parties should contemplate the use of emails.
The recipient is deemed to have received the acceptance even when he/she has not read the email. The above rule was applied and upheld in the case of Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl. The message in question was sent by telex. The recipient did not receive it immediately. The contention was on whether the postal rule applied in cases of instant communication. The court stated that the rule is inapplicable in such cases. Communication was deemed to be effective after the telex was sent. This was the case even though the recipient did not receive the message instantaneously. The law allows a party to revoke an offer before it is accepted.
Once acceptance has been effectively communicated, it cannot be revoked (Lambiris, 2012). The revocation should be communicated in accordance with the rules stipulated above. The revocation of an offer that has already been accepted is not effective. An effective revocation will, therefore, depend on whether there was a valid acceptance. In the present scenario, Peter had stipulated how and when Sally was supposed to send her acceptance. Sally sent the email accepting Peter’ s counter offer 15 minutes before the stated time lapsed.
She, therefore, adhered to Peter’ s stipulations. This is as far as time and means of communication apply. The parties corresponded via email. This was, therefore, their preferred means of communication. The law deems acceptance by email to be effective when the email is sent. For this reason, Sally’ s email accepting Peter’ s counteroffer was effective. This is despite the fact that Peter did not read it until three days later. The conclusion is, therefore, that Sally accepted Peter’ s counter offer. Peter purported to revoke his counteroffer to Sally before the bicycle was delivered.
However, the law does not allow one to revoke an offer once it has been accepted. Sally’ s acceptance was effective. Therefore, an enforceable agreement existed between them from the moment the email was sent. Consequently, Peter’ s “ revocation” is ineffective. He has an obligation to receive the bicycle and pay for it. Sally has a right to enforce these obligations against Peter.