The Student Room Group
it's not an essay it's problem question

go through Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Intention to see if there is a contract or not.
Reply 2
Original post by Democracy2013
it's not an essay it's problem question

go through Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Intention to see if there is a contract or not.


couldn't i say the revocation of an offer must be communicated by the offeror to theofferee. ( therefore because she got it late, there was a contract made)
did the postal rule apply though....
Original post by Democracy2013
did the postal rule apply though....


From what I remember, yes, it does apply. Why? because as soon as the letter is stamped and signed and sent, the terms of the contract would come into effect. It does not matter whether it was received or not.
did the person making the offer say the postal rule applies is the question
Reply 6
Original post by doriscikaj
hello, i am really struggling with this problem question can some help please :frown:(((

Carla is the owner of an Italianrestaurant in London. In 2014, the following takes place
: (i) On 1 November 2014, Eugenia sent aletter to Carla offering to sell 50 kilos of durum wheat pasta at a reduced price of £150. The usualprice is £250. On 4 November, Carla returned from a business trip and immediately replied acceptingthe offer by post. However Eugenia sent another letter on 2
November which said, “Due to unexpectedproblems with suppliers, we cannot supply the goods at the price offered.” Carla received thisletter on 5 November. Eugenia received Carla’s letter on 6 November and wrote back to Carla stating that she couldnot supply the pasta to Carla on the conditions stated in the offer of 1 November 2014. AdviseCarla.


You must not confuse the postal rule between offer and acceptance here.


Firstly, there is evidently an offer and acceptance here. The offer is signalled by the word "offering" in the prompt, and the acceptance by the word "accepting the offer" (sometimes you just take the facts you are given as undisputed).

In applying the postal rule, as established in Adams v Lindsell, acceptance by post takes place when the letter is actually posted, not when it is received by the other party. As such, Carla accepted the offer on the 4th of November, and a legally binding contract was formed at that time - ie not on the 6th of November. Unlike Holwell Securities v Hughes, no specific method of acceptance was required, so Eugenia cannot claim that the acceptance was not valid on this basis.

Now, it is possible to withdraw the offer BEFORE it is accepted (Routledge v Grant). Here, Eugenia did send a letter to Carla to let her know.
However, the withdrawal of the offer must be communicated to the other party promptly (Byrne v Tienhoven). Applying the principle here in the words of Lindley LJ, the postal rule is not valid when it comes to revoking an offer. The revocation is only valid when it reaches the other party. Carla only received this letter on the 5th, which was one day after the day she accepted the offer. Thus, applying Routledge, revocation of the offer was no longer possible.

To sum this up, Eugenia may have only received the acceptance on the 6th, which was 4 days after attempting to revoke the offer, but applying the postal rule Carla, by sending the acceptance letter on the 4th had accepted the offer - the revocation letter was only valid when she received it on the 5th, but that was too late.


Disclaimer: I'm only in my first term of my law degree and I'm giving my first exams in January - don't take everything as granted :biggrin:

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by BrokenLife
From what I remember, yes, it does apply. Why? because as soon as the letter is stamped and signed and sent, the terms of the contract would come into effect. It does not matter whether it was received or not.


The law would not bind the person making an offer to the postal rule if it were the case that a postal rule was not even mentioned. Like every other area of law, including property law ie trusts, wills, the person making a gift through a will or trust can choose to change their mind up to the point it becomes binding. This is why in contract law the revocation rule applies which permits the offeror the opportunity to cancel their offer. So therefore, the postal rule is subject to the offeror's choice of acceptance:
Manchester Diocesan Council for Education

v Commercial & General Investments Ltd
[1970] 1 WLR 241 (ChD)
, ergo you cannot automatically imply a postal rule just for the sake of convenience. There is no right or wrong answer in law so stop looking for easy answers...examine everything thoroughly.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 8
Original post by Democracy2013
The law would not bind the person making an offer to the postal rule if it were the case that a postal rule was not even mentioned. Like every other area of law, including property law ie trusts, wills, the person making a gift through a will or trust can choose to change their mind up to the point it becomes binding. This is why in contract law the revocation rule applies which permits the offeror the opportunity to cancel their offer. So therefore, the postal rule is subject to the offeror's choice of acceptance:
Manchester Diocesan Council for Education

v Commercial & General Investments Ltd
[1970] 1 WLR 241 (ChD)
, ergo you cannot automatically imply a postal rule just for the sake of convenience. There is no right or wrong answer in law so stop looking for easy answers...examine everything thoroughly.


This is a first year exam and it is assumed that people will use the postal rule.

Secondly, it says "advise Carla", and any competent lawyer, to put it in our tutor's words, would definitely examine the rule.

The problem is almost identical to Byrne v Tienhoven, and failure to mention the rule would be catastrophic.

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
Mention the rule as the clue indicates you're supposed to - but do not just assume that the postal rule applies overall.
There is no need to explicitly state 'the postal rule will apply', in order for the postal rule to apply.

The law would not bind the person making an offer to the postal rule if it were the case that a postal rule was not even mentioned.
.

That isn't correct - for counterexamples see every single case where the postal rule applied - in none of those cases did the offer mention the postal rule.

Latest