Consideration
1 (a) According to the information from the question, Hei Lau’s letter amounted to an offer to sell his second-hand car and the offer would remain open for one week. Although Chiu Chor made the first letter to Hei Lau for inquiring “whether he would take HK$40,000 for the car”, the original offer was still valid because this inquiry was a mere request for information about the offer rather than a counter offer, it does not imply a rejection of the offer. An example of a mere request is the case of Stevenson, Jacques & Co v McLean (1880) :
The defendant offered to sell a quantity of iron at £2 a ton. The offeree asked if he could have credit. The defendant did not reply, but instead sold the iron to a third party. Then the offeree accepted the offer to sell at £2 a ton.
Held : The defendant was in breach of contract because the offeree had only made a request for more information. Unlike a counter offer, this request did not revoke the original offer.
The second letter of Chiu Chor had also sent out to Hei Lau to agree to buy the car for HK$85,000 within the week that is an acceptance of the offer, however, the letter was lost in the post. Under the postal rule, an acceptance made by posting a letter is effective when it is posted (with prepaid stamp and proper address) even if it is delayed/lost in the post or never reaches the addressee (offeror). The postal rule was set out in Adams v Lindsell (1818) :
On 2 September 1818 the defendants posted an offer to sell some wool to the claimant. The offer asked for a reply by return of post. The letter containing the offer was misdirected because it was not properly addressed. It therefore arrived on 5 September, whereas if it had not been misdirected it would have arrived on 3 September. The claimant posted a letter of acceptance by return of post. This letter arrived on 9 September. If the first letter had not been misdirected, a reply by return of post would have reached the defendants by 7
The defendant offered to sell a quantity of iron at £2 a ton. The offeree asked if he could have credit. The defendant did not reply, but instead sold the iron to a third party. Then the offeree accepted the offer to sell at £2 a ton.
Held : The defendant was in breach of contract because the offeree had only made a request for more information. Unlike a counter offer, this request did not revoke the original offer.
The second letter of Chiu Chor had also sent out to Hei Lau to agree to buy the car for HK$85,000 within the week that is an acceptance of the offer, however, the letter was lost in the post. Under the postal rule, an acceptance made by posting a letter is effective when it is posted (with prepaid stamp and proper address) even if it is delayed/lost in the post or never reaches the addressee (offeror). The postal rule was set out in Adams v Lindsell (1818) :
On 2 September 1818 the defendants posted an offer to sell some wool to the claimant. The offer asked for a reply by return of post. The letter containing the offer was misdirected because it was not properly addressed. It therefore arrived on 5 September, whereas if it had not been misdirected it would have arrived on 3 September. The claimant posted a letter of acceptance by return of post. This letter arrived on 9 September. If the first letter had not been misdirected, a reply by return of post would have reached the defendants by 7