Effectively Communicated Acceptance

        As mentioned earlier, communication can be presented in so many forms. Some of the communication forms can cause difficulties in determining whether the intended acceptance of offerees is, in fact, effective sufficiently in order to form a contract.

        The rule that might be applied here is the postal rule, and a basic principle of this rule was defined in the case Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27; effective acceptance takes place at the postage moment in a case where postage is considered as a communication’s prescribed means between the parties.

        Although this looks strange, as the offeree might be unaware of the acceptance when it takes place, the reasoning of the Courts can be considered fair and logical.  There is no control of Offerees over an acceptance letter after the letter has posted.  This is why an undue burden on the offeree would be placed to count on the service of postal for letter delivery.  Instead this burden is placed on an offeror; it is contended by Court that by keeping the postal rule included as an acceptance mean (that is within the power of offerors as witnessed in the case Household Fire insurance v Grant [1879] 4 Ex D 216), it is agreed and acknowledged willingly to host the burden.

        There are various issues that must be considered with a postal rule; acceptance taking place at the postage moment forms so many questions, and the first question is that if the letter of acceptance does not arrive itself, then that offer can still be accepted or not? The answer to this question can be found in Adams v Lindsell [1818] 1B & Ald 681 case where it was recognised that in the situations where a letter of acceptance is delayed, lost, or even destroyed, acceptance at the postage moment is still communicated effectively.  As the burden of the arrival of letters is passed to an offeror.

        The second most common question that arises in such a situation is that if the letter does not reach the destination because of the offeree’s fault, can it be considered that acceptance is still communicated effectively? The answer to this question can be found in LJ Korbetis v Transgrain Shipping BV [2005] EWHC 1345 case that in the situations where it is considered the fault of an offeree that the letter of acceptance is not arrived at destination, for example, the address provided by offeree is wrong or offeree has changes his or her postal address; the burden of arrival of the letters does not pass at a postage moment, and any acceptance as such is considered as not communicated effectively.

        he third and last most common question that arises in such situation is that can the postal rule be excluded by an offeror to their offer from being applicable? The answer to this question can be found in Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27 case; the first thing in this situation that is to be determined is that either the post is a communication’s prescribed means between the parties or not; if it is then the postal rule will be applied and if it is not then the postal rule will not be applied.

        In order to reiterate the earlier-made point, if it is willingly consented by an offeror to accepting the burden of postal rules, can it be refused? The answer to this question can be observed in Household Fire insurance v Grant [1879] 4 Ex D 216 case. This case established that if the offeror impliedly or expressly rescinds the postal rule’s effect, then acceptance will not take place at the postage moment. The points to be remembered are:

Accepting the offer must be reasonable through the post.

If all the formalities are met that surround its correct postage and the letter, then it is immaterial whether it arrives.

The postage can be excluded by the offeror as a communication method.

The offeror can impliedly or expressly rescind the postal rule.

        In commercial contracts, most of the times, the parties involved, i.e. offerer and offeree, employs the standard terms while making a contract. The reason for this is very obvious such as saving as much time and money as much possible. If standard terms are known to both parties, then a problem will arise clearly. If both offeree and offeree agree to standard terms of each other while making the course of dealings, then it is to decide that parties will be binding to which terms by the Court and it is knowing as the battle of the forms. BRS v Arthur V Crutchley Ltd [1968] 1 All ER 811 decided it that the last shot principle would be followed by Court. Defining simply, the last terms set which were agreed between the parties will be applicable in the court. It is agreed by the Court that the decided terms should bind the offeror and offeree.