Does the postal rule apply on responds to invitation to treat

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.

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

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!

No worries, glad I could help #Moooose

Oh my god I just realized you're a student in Exeter too?? What year are you in?

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!

Oh wowwwwww congratulations! Yeah I like contract quite a lot but constitutional law sucks I absolutely hate it.

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 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?

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.

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).

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.

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

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.