Contract Acceptance And Deadlines

Summary

Sandras circular is an invitation to treat, not a binding offer. Patricks first letter is a counteroffer, and his second letter is a valid acceptance. Alberts acceptance, although posted before the deadline, is invalid as it arrived after the specified deadline, which overrides the Postal Acceptance Rule. The rule applies unless the offeror specifies conditions, such as a deadline. Therefore, Sandra is bound to sell the lamps to Patrick based on his acceptance on 3rd April.

Full Conversation

Sandra has three Tiffany lamps to sell. On 1st April she sends a circular to five of her usual clients stating “For Sale – Three Tiffany lamps at £* each. This important opportunity is open for acceptance until 14th April. First come first served”. • Patrick sends a letter to Sandra on 2nd April requesting supply of all three lamps at a discounted price of £*. • Albert sends a letter to her on 3rd April stating that he will purchase one lamp. Unfortunately, his letter is lost in the post and it does not arrive until 15th April. • Patrick sends a second letter, also on 3rd April, agreeing to buy all three lamps at the asking price.
Based on UK contract law:
- Sandra's circular is considered an invitation to treat, not a binding offer.
- Patrick's letter on 2nd April is a counteroffer, which Sandra can accept or reject.
- Albert's letter on 3rd April is an offer but arrives after the stated acceptance deadline (14th April), making it invalid.
- Patrick's second letter on 3rd April, agreeing to buy all three lamps at the asking price, is an acceptance of Sandra's invitation to treat.
Therefore, Sandra is legally bound to sell the lamps to Patrick based on his second letter received on 3rd April.
Do you have any further questions about this scenario?
Shouldn't the Postal Acceptance rule apply to Albert's case?
In UK contract law, the Postal Acceptance Rule states that acceptance is effective when the letter is posted, not when it is received. However, for this rule to apply, the offeror (Sandra) must not specify any other method of acceptance.
In this scenario, Sandra's circular sets a specific deadline of 14th April for acceptance. Since Albert's letter arrived on 15th April, it doesn't meet the specified deadline, and thus, the Postal Acceptance Rule does not apply. Patrick's acceptance on 3rd April is valid as it meets the conditions set by Sandra.
Do you have any other questions about this scenario or need further clarification?
So is Albert's acceptance not taken into consideration because it arrived after the deadlien?
Case Rating: *
Albert's acceptance is not taken into consideration because it arrived after the specified deadline of 14th April. The Postal Acceptance Rule does not apply here as Sandra set a clear deadline for acceptance.
But according to Van Tienhoven (*), the court held that the rule applied even if the letter of acceptance was delayed or lost in the post.
Case Rating: *
The Van Tienhoven case you're referring to established that a revocation of offer is only effective upon its receipt by the offeree. However, in your scenario, the key issue is the specified deadline for acceptance.
- Sandra's circular is an invitation to treat.
- Patrick's acceptance on 3rd April is valid.
- Albert's acceptance arrived after the deadline, making it invalid.
Would you like further details on any specific aspect of this case?
But under the Postal Acceptance rule, contract is legally made at the moment of posting as if it had at that point been received by the other party, even though not yet communicated
Case Rating: *
You are correct that, under the Postal Acceptance Rule, acceptance is effective upon posting. However, in this scenario, Sandra's circular set a specific deadline for acceptance, which is a crucial detail. Here are the key points:
- Invitation to Treat: Sandra's circular.
- Counteroffer: Patrick's first letter on 2nd April.
- Acceptance: Patrick's second letter on 3rd April.
- Invalid Acceptance: Albert's letter, as it arrived after the deadline.
Would you like any further clarification on this case?
Albert's acceptance was sent on the 3rd, and under the Postal Acceptance Rule the contract is legally made at the moment of posting as if it had at that point been received by the other party, even though not yet communicated
Case Rating: *
In this scenario, the Postal Acceptance Rule does indeed state that acceptance is effective when the letter is posted. However, the crucial detail is that Sandra set a specific deadline of 14th April for acceptance. Here are the main points:
- Invitation to Treat: Sandra's circular.
- Counteroffer: Patrick's first letter on 2nd April.
- Acceptance: Patrick's second letter on 3rd April.
- Invalid Acceptance: Albert's letter, as it arrived after the deadline.
Since the deadline was clearly stated, Albert's acceptance, despite being posted on the 3rd, is invalid as it arrived after the specified deadline.
Would you like to know more about how deadlines affect contract acceptance?
Even though Albert's letter arrived late, under the Postal acceptance rule the contract is legally made at the moment of posting as if it had at that point been received by the other party, even though not yet communicated. Therefore, the acceptance was sent by Albert on the 3rd of April, which is before the deadline. Why do you disagree
Case Rating: *
Albert's acceptance, while posted before the deadline, arrived after it. Generally, the Postal Acceptance Rule applies unless the offeror specifies conditions. Sandra's fixed deadline overrides the rule. Therefore, Patrick's acceptance on 3rd April is valid.
Would you like more details on how deadlines impact contract acceptance?