The paper "Translating Business Contract into Compliant Business Processes" is a good example of a Business Assignment. There are elements that are necessary for a legally enforceable contract. An offer is the first element followed by acceptance. Acceptance is a process and occurs where there is an unqualified acceptance of the offered terms. In most instances, it is unusual to have an unqualified acceptance since it is hard for one party to consent with all the offered terms. Negotiation can follow to come up with new conditions and introduce new terms as a counteroffer that cancels the terms established in the original offer. Following the notion that negotiation exists, the contract offer is only confirmed accepted, if the acceptance is communicated to the offeror.
In most cases, the attention of the offeror is highly desirable where a contract requires instantaneous communication. In such a case, a telephone can be indicated as the channels of communication so that the offeree can confirm that acceptance is received. The party that gives acceptance has to use reliable channels of communication so as to know at once whether the communication was successful or unsuccessful.
In case of unsuccessful communication, the party can have an opportunity to make proper communication. However, there is an exception to such a requirement for communication. The exception rule applies where acceptance is posted. In such a case, the offer is deemed accepted if an offeree has posted their acceptance. Silence cannot constitute acceptance as a general rule that applies to all contracts. The contract is formed when acceptance is sent. The parties to the contract who wish to send such notices by slow channels like email or post would need to enact specific provisions and include them to set out how a notice sent through emails is deemed to have been received.
In Olivaylle Pty Ltd v Flottweg GMBH & Co KGAA (2009) (No 4), the judge ruled out an email as a method of instantaneous communication. Open offers have options and parties realize that there is a particular amount of time needed for the offer to be considered. The time gives the potential party an opportunity for considering the deal without worries that someone might be given the offer or that some terms in the deal will change in the meantime. There is an established general rule following the previous case law.
Where a post is used for communication and the offeror intended that there will be acceptance by such an act, communication of an offer is ascertained to occur when the letter is put in post-box. If the offeree puts a letter in the post-box to confirm acceptance before another customer proceeds, then the first party is entitled to claim the damages as the act is tantamount to breach of contract.
There is a restrictive view in Australia which can be established by how Tallerman & Co Pty Ltd v Nathan's Merchandise (1957) 98 CLR 93 was concluded. The parties had successfully carried some past contract but failed the plaintiff failed to be careful with one of them by implying based on previous ones. Australia's general rule cannot find a contract complete where a claim of completion does not justify that posting the letter of acceptance was inferred. In this case, the intention was included as an element.
Law, HKICPA PC. "Legal System." The International Encyclopedia of Social (2010).
McKendrick, Ewan. Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press, 2012.
Milosevic, Zoran, S. Sadiq, and M. Orlowska. "Translating business contract into compliant business processes." In Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, 2006. EDOC'06. 10th IEEE International, pp. 211-220. IEEE, 2006.
Shavell, Steven. "On the Writing and the Interpretation of Contracts." Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 22, no. 2 (2006): 289-314.
Shiffrin, Seana Valentine. "The divergence of contract and promise." Harvard Law Review (2007): 708-753.
Olivaylle Pty Ltd v Flottweg GMBH & Co KGAA (2009) (No 4)
Rose and Frank & Co v Crompton  2 KB 261
Tallerman & Co Pty Ltd v Nathan's Merchandise (Vic) Pty Ltd (1957) 98 CLR 93
Tinn v Hoffman (1873) 29 LT 271