Postal Rule of Acceptance

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 377
  • Published : March 23, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
Four main justifications of Postal Acceptance Rule
i. ‘Ad infinitum’ Justification
Postal rule had existed almost for 200 years and the post had been creating problems for people which the courts are obliged to solve them logically. Why it had been creating so many problems for people and that we will be discussing later on. For now let’s look at the four main justifications for postal rule of acceptance. It came from Treitel and he believes that the four main justifications are for the creation of postal rule. First of all, the first justification is the “Ad Infinitum” justification where its main rationale is that acceptance by post has to be valid on posting because if there were no postings which mean there is no contract formed. Based on the case of Adam v Lindsell, the defendant actually mail the offer of selling wool to plaintiff and the plaintiff was requested on mailing back to the defendant. Unfortunately there was an error in the offered price and plaintiff did not receive it. We can thus conclude that the defendant had not receive the letter of acceptance and therefore the defendant assume that the plaintiff did not want to accept his offer so he sold the wool to a third party. There was actually a contract exists before the sale of the wool because acceptance made right after the mail is being mailed. Therefore, the defendant was liable in breach of contract. In this case, it might go on ad infinitum because once mail is being posted which means that acceptance is being made. Of course, there is a high level of uncertainty because of the distance between the two parties causing them difficulties for the formation of contract. ii. ‘Symbolic Act’ Justification

In this justification, rationale being that the offeror must be considered as continually making (the offer) until he has brought to the knowledge of the person to whom it made that it is withdraw. Based on the case of Brogden v Directors of Metropolitan Railway Co, there was a contract...
tracking img