Back
to top
Does the postal rule apply on responds to invitation to treat
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
So I'm aware that the postal rule applies to acceptance, but if someone is responding to an invitation to treat (an advertisement for example), can the postal rule apply to their respond if the ad is selling things on a first come first served basis? Thank you.
0
reply
Report
#2
(Original post by taylornicholsonj)
So I'm aware that the postal rule applies to acceptance, but if someone is responding to an invitation to treat (an advertisement for example), can the postal rule apply to their respond if the ad is selling things on a first come first served basis? Thank you.
So I'm aware that the postal rule applies to acceptance, but if someone is responding to an invitation to treat (an advertisement for example), can the postal rule apply to their respond if the ad is selling things on a first come first served basis? Thank you.
#Moooose
0
reply
(Original post by OvergrownMoose)
Yes, the postal rule will apply, unless a different intention is shown by the person/company making an invitation to treat e.g. if it is said that 'notice in writing' is required to accept, then the postal rule will not be applied. See, for instance, Holwell Securities v Hughes [1974]
#Moooose
Yes, the postal rule will apply, unless a different intention is shown by the person/company making an invitation to treat e.g. if it is said that 'notice in writing' is required to accept, then the postal rule will not be applied. See, for instance, Holwell Securities v Hughes [1974]
#Moooose
0
reply
Report
#4
(Original post by taylornicholsonj)
omg thank youuuu i kept refreshing to see if anyone had answered my question because I'm working on an assignment rn hahah. thank you!
omg thank youuuu i kept refreshing to see if anyone had answered my question because I'm working on an assignment rn hahah. thank you!
#Moooose
0
reply
0
reply
Report
#6
(Original post by taylornicholsonj)
Oh my god I just realized you're a student in Exeter too?? What year are you in?
Oh my god I just realized you're a student in Exeter too?? What year are you in?
0
reply
(Original post by OvergrownMoose)
Haha, yep! I actually graduated this year with first class honours :P How are you finding it? If you need any help with anything just let me know!
Haha, yep! I actually graduated this year with first class honours :P How are you finding it? If you need any help with anything just let me know!
0
reply
Report
#8
(Original post by taylornicholsonj)
Oh wowwwwww congratulations! Yeah I like contract quite a lot but constitutional law sucks I absolutely hate it.
Oh wowwwwww congratulations! Yeah I like contract quite a lot but constitutional law sucks I absolutely hate it.
#Moooose
0
reply
(Original post by OvergrownMoose)
I actually found first year quite difficult, so don't worry if you struggle! Constitutional was boring, but it's actually really easy to do well in - I don't know who your lecturers are but if they are the same as mine you will be fine #Moooose
I actually found first year quite difficult, so don't worry if you struggle! Constitutional was boring, but it's actually really easy to do well in - I don't know who your lecturers are but if they are the same as mine you will be fine
#Moooose
0
reply
Report
#10
(Original post by taylornicholsonj)
I am struggling a bit lol there's so much work. We have Tim for contract and everyone loves him haha and also Nathan for criminal he's really good too. Quick question what modules did you take for your final year?
I am struggling a bit lol there's so much work. We have Tim for contract and everyone loves him haha and also Nathan for criminal he's really good too. Quick question what modules did you take for your final year?
Ah Nathan is fantastic, he makes everything very clear! In my final year I took Equity & Trusts (a compulsory module), International Law, Commercial law, and a dissertation #Moooose
0
reply
Report
#11
Sorry to disagree but the postal rule cannot apply to responses to invitations to treat, because any response to such an invitation could not, by definition, be an acceptance.
Whether any particular advert is an invitation to treat or an offer is a different question. If you decide it is an offer then maybe the postal rule could apply. (Although it is quite hard to think of good examples as in most cases the things that lead you to conclude that in some particular case an advert is an offer would usually also lead you to conclude that the postal rule must have been impliedly excluded).
Whether any particular advert is an invitation to treat or an offer is a different question. If you decide it is an offer then maybe the postal rule could apply. (Although it is quite hard to think of good examples as in most cases the things that lead you to conclude that in some particular case an advert is an offer would usually also lead you to conclude that the postal rule must have been impliedly excluded).
0
reply
Report
#12
(Original post by taylornicholsonj)
So I'm aware that the postal rule applies to acceptance, but if someone is responding to an invitation to treat (an advertisement for example), can the postal rule apply to their respond if the ad is selling things on a first come first served basis? Thank you.
So I'm aware that the postal rule applies to acceptance, but if someone is responding to an invitation to treat (an advertisement for example), can the postal rule apply to their respond if the ad is selling things on a first come first served basis? Thank you.
The postal rule doesn't apply, therefore.
0
reply
Report
#13
(Original post by Forum User)
Sorry to disagree but the postal rule cannot apply to responses to invitations to treat, because any response to such an invitation could not, by definition, be an acceptance.
Whether any particular advert is an invitation to treat or an offer is a different question. If you decide it is an offer then maybe the postal rule could apply. (Although it is quite hard to think of good examples as in most cases the things that lead you to conclude that in some particular case an advert is an offer would usually also lead you to conclude that the postal rule must have been impliedly excluded).
Sorry to disagree but the postal rule cannot apply to responses to invitations to treat, because any response to such an invitation could not, by definition, be an acceptance.
Whether any particular advert is an invitation to treat or an offer is a different question. If you decide it is an offer then maybe the postal rule could apply. (Although it is quite hard to think of good examples as in most cases the things that lead you to conclude that in some particular case an advert is an offer would usually also lead you to conclude that the postal rule must have been impliedly excluded).
(Original post by Mimir)
If I remember rightly, an advert is not an offer. Therefore a response is not an acceptance (put simply).
The postal rule doesn't apply, therefore.
If I remember rightly, an advert is not an offer. Therefore a response is not an acceptance (put simply).
The postal rule doesn't apply, therefore.
#Moooose
0
reply
Report
#14
At the very least, if answering a problem question on this I would encourage the OP to make sure it is DEFINITELY an invitation to treat, and not an offer. If it is an offer being made, then the postal rule clearly applies #Moooose
0
reply
Report
#15
(Original post by OvergrownMoose)
At the very least, if answering a problem question on this I would encourage the OP to make sure it is DEFINITELY an invitation to treat, and not an offer. If it is an offer being made, then the postal rule clearly applies #Moooose
At the very least, if answering a problem question on this I would encourage the OP to make sure it is DEFINITELY an invitation to treat, and not an offer. If it is an offer being made, then the postal rule clearly applies #Moooose
If you find an exceptional advert that is an offer then the reasons you conclude that is an offer are likely to also lead you to conclude that the postal rule must have been excluded.
Consider the example in the OP. You might decide that "first come, first served" makes this particular advert an offer rather than an invitation to treat (by analogy to Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Stores, perhaps). However, the same phrase means that the postal rule cannot apply: the offer is accepted by being the "first come", not by putting a letter of acceptance in the post.
0
reply
Report
#16
Hi there just saw these posts and this is my first time on here. I have a question and it's doing my head in don't know if anyone can help.
If a letter of acceptance is misaddressed but does reach the offeror eventually does that still form a binding contract? Because Adams v Lindsell it says it does but when I read the Contimar case it says it doesn't. What's the difference in these two cases as I am now soo confused!!! Can anybody help me on this pleaseee
If a letter of acceptance is misaddressed but does reach the offeror eventually does that still form a binding contract? Because Adams v Lindsell it says it does but when I read the Contimar case it says it doesn't. What's the difference in these two cases as I am now soo confused!!! Can anybody help me on this pleaseee
0
reply
Report
#17
(Original post by Alizah01)
Hi there just saw these posts and this is my first time on here. I have a question and it's doing my head in don't know if anyone can help.
If a letter of acceptance is misaddressed but does reach the offeror eventually does that still form a binding contract? Because Adams v Lindsell it says it does but when I read the Contimar case it says it doesn't. What's the difference in these two cases as I am now soo confused!!! Can anybody help me on this pleaseee
Hi there just saw these posts and this is my first time on here. I have a question and it's doing my head in don't know if anyone can help.
If a letter of acceptance is misaddressed but does reach the offeror eventually does that still form a binding contract? Because Adams v Lindsell it says it does but when I read the Contimar case it says it doesn't. What's the difference in these two cases as I am now soo confused!!! Can anybody help me on this pleaseee
#Moooose
0
reply
Report
#18
(Original post by Alizah01)
If a letter of acceptance is misaddressed but does reach the offeror eventually does that still form a binding contract? Because Adams v Lindsell it says it does but when I read the Contimar case it says it doesn't.
If a letter of acceptance is misaddressed but does reach the offeror eventually does that still form a binding contract? Because Adams v Lindsell it says it does but when I read the Contimar case it says it doesn't.
Adams v Lindsell has nothing to do with misaddressed acceptances. You have misread the facts. The claimant's letter of acceptance was addressed correctly.
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
