- This topic has 2 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
.
- Posts
I do not understand the Bryne & Van Tienhoven case on the principle of “Revocation of Offer must actually be communicated to the offeree. If I understand the lecture correctly (Offers) in this case the Contract was valid since the revocation was only received after the Offer was received and Acceptance was mailed.
The part that has me confused is in the lecture on Termination of an Offer the Postal rule does not apply.
Please could you explain the postal rule and how it works? I think I am misunderstanding this.My understanding and logic to make both statements true:
Acceptance: Contract is valid when Acceptance is mailed.
Revocation of Offer: I valid only when the letter of revocation is physically received by the offeree.Postal Rule: The point at which a contract becomes affected when communicating by post being at the point of mailing.
Please could you let me know if I have the correct understanding of the Postal Rule
I get the principal of the Postal rule now and understand it applies to acceptance and not the offer or termination of an offer.
As in the case of “Household Fire Insurance co & Grant”
Acceptance is valid at the point when acceptance is mailed, provided all the Postal rule criteria are met.
Criteria:
1. Acceptance must be in writing in a letter or memo, be in an envelope which has been correctly stamped (Correct postage has been Paid)
2. It must be Mailed using the accepted means of mailing a letter/ Envelope, i.e. Letter box, registered letter etc.
3. Both parties must Offeror & Acceptor must agree this to appropriate means of communicating acceptance. So if it is a face to face offer in a shop it is most probably not reasonable to accept via post, it could however be reasonable if circumstances are reasonable.So in the Case Ramsgate Victoria Hotel & Montefiori it was held that the offer was terminated due to a laps of time (5 months were it it accepted 3 months to be accepted period for the sale of shares)
If however the Hotels liquidator could prove the acceptance was mailed. Would the acceptance & Contract be Valid?Well, it would have been – if the liquidator had been able to prove that the company’s letter of acceptance had been mailed. There could have been other factors about the case – I don’t know of any! – where the Courts may still have found in favour of Montifiore, but that’s pure speculation!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.