Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:16:00 +0100

From: John Murphy

Subject: Postal Acceptance Rule

Jason:

I agree with what Peter says, but would be keen to stretch the thinking a tad further. And maybe you can help here.

When I first read your email, I thought, pretty much along the lines that Peter did, that it can only really matter if there is a postal rejection rule where the offeree changes his mind. But the truth is that it can only really matter where BOTH parties change their mind.

If there were a postal rejection rule, then the offeree's more expeditious communication that overtakes the letter would, presumably, be seen as a new offer. The fact that it mirrored exactly the terms of the offeror's initial offer would be neither here nor there. It would then be up to the INITIAL offeror to agree. If he did, they'd have a contract notwithstanding the postal rejection rule. The only thing that would have changed is the status of the parties.

And if there were no postal rejection rule, the parties would still have contract.

So the only thing that really matters is the fact that the INITIAL offeror has also changed his mind. And this is because, though he has agreed to the SECOND OFFER (coming from the initial offeree whose expeditious communication overtakes his letter of rejection), he now seeks to rely on the postal rejection.

His only argument would be that he didn't think he was agreeing to an offer, but merely receiving confirmation of the fact that the initial offeree has accepted his initial offer.

BUT HERE, wouldn't the initial offeror be caught be the objective approach that is taken to the interpretation of offer and acceptance?

In practice, I don't think that there is an issue here (except with respect to international contracts). Why? Because the post takes two days maximum (except at Xmas). That would mean that the initial offeror would have to change his mind pretty damn fast, wouldn't it?

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>