Acceptance Lecture
LawTeacher logo
LawTeacher The law essay professionals
0115 966 7966 Today's Opening Times 10:00 - 20:00 (BST)

2.2.2 Acceptance Lecture

What is acceptance?

Acceptance proceeds an offer as the second requirement for a legally binding contract.  It can be defined as the instance in contractual formation where the parties’ intentions as to the terms of the contract are the same or unequivocal.  This intent must then be effectively communicated to the offeror to complete the acceptance of the offer.

Unequivocal is one of the key terms relevant when dealing with issues with acceptance.  It is defined as “leaving no doubt” and is often strictly interpreted - Hyde v Wrench [1840] 3 Beav 334.

Communication is the second key word.  Although the moment intent has been communicated effectively is often obvious in certain situations, issues can be easily overlooked.

Acceptance must mirror the offer

Often in situations it will seem as though an offeree has effectively communicated their acceptance of an offer to the offeror.  If this acceptance however has modified conditions attached as to the terms of the offer, then can it be considered unequivocal?

Counter-offers

In Hyde v Wrench [1840] 3 Beav 334, the above issue was raised in the Court.  The facts of the case are as follows;

An offeror made an offer to sell land at £1000 and the offeree responded by attempting to accept the offer at £950.  This was subsequently rejected by the offeror.  An attempt was by the offeree to accept the original offer of £1000.

The Court found that the original offeree was now unable to accept the original offer of £1000.  This was due to the fact that the previous “acceptance” of the offer at £950 had fundamentally changed the relationship of the parties.  Why?  When the original offeree changed the conditions of the offer by changing the terms of its price, they in fact created a counter-offer.

Counter-offers revoke any previous offers and a revoked offer is not capable of being accepted.

Requests for information

Often counter-offers are confused with simple requests for information due to them both involving terms of existing offers in a similar way.

The distinction between them was made apparent in the case of Stevenson Jaques & Co. v McLean (1880) 5 QBD 346;

In this instance the offeree made an inquiry as to whether the offeror would allow a particular method/time of delivery, of the goods concerned in the offer.

It was found by the Court that asking question to clarify the existing terms of an offer was not in-fact a counter-offer but a simple request for information.

Cross-offers

While incredibly rare, there are instances where two parties both send complimentary offers to one-another at the same time.  The question is, if this occurs has the contract been accepted?

Tinn v Hoffman (1873) 29 LT 271 – Such instances are not sufficient to amount to acceptance of either offer i.e. offers and acceptance must be communicated separately.

Remember:

  • Without an offer there can be no acceptance.
  • A counter-offer will revoke existing offers;
  • Requests for information do not revoke offers.
  • To determine whether something communicated by the offeree is either a counter-offer or request for information.  Always examine whether to give effect to the communication, the terms of the offer have to change, as that is the key distinction.
  • Cross-offers cannot amount to acceptance.

Acceptance must be effectively communicated

Communication as mentioned earlier can present itself in a variety of forms.  Some of which can cause difficulties determining whether the offerees’ intended acceptance is in fact sufficiently effective to form a contract.

The postal rule

The basic principle of the postal rule was defined in Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27;

Where postage is considered a prescribed means of communication between the parties, effective acceptance occurs at the moment of postage.

Although this seems odd, as the offeree may not be aware of the acceptance when it occurs, the Courts’ reasoning can be considered logical/fair.  Offerees have no control over an acceptance letter once it is posted.  Therefore, it would place an undue burden on an offeree to count on the postal service to deliver the letter.  This burden is instead placed on the offeror; the Court contends that by not excluding the postal rule as a means of acceptance (which is within an offerors power - Household Fire insurance v Grant [1879] 4 Ex D 216), they have willingly acknowledged and agreed to host this burden.

Issues to consider with the postal rule

Acceptance occurring at the moment of postage raises a number of questions, the first;

Can an offer still be accepted if the acceptance letter itself does not arrive?

In Adams v Lindsell [1818] 1B & Ald 681 it was established that even in situations where a letter is destroyed, delayed or lost, acceptance is still effectively communicated at the moment of postage.  As the burden of the letters arrival has passed to the offeror.

The second question is;

If the letter does not arrive due to the fault of the offeree, is the acceptance still effectively communicated?

The case of LJ Korbetis v Transgrain Shipping BV [2005] EWHC 1345 establishes that, in situations where the acceptance does not arrive due to the fault of the offeree, for example, instances where a letter is misaddressed.  The burden of the letters arrival does not pass at the moment of postage and as such, any acceptance is not considered effectively communicated.

The final question is;

Can the offeror exclude the postal rule from being applicable to their offer?

First it should be determined whether the post is a prescribed means of communication between the parties.  If it is not, then the postal rule will not apply - Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27.

To reiterate a point made earlier, if an offeror can willingly consent to accepting the postal rules’ burden, can they refuse it?

Household Fire insurance v Grant [1879] 4 Ex D 216 makes it evident that if an offeror expressly or impliedly rescinds the effect of the postal rule, then acceptance will not occur at the moment of postage.

Remember:

  • It must be reasonable to accept the offer through the post.
  • If all the formalities surrounding the letter and its correct postage are met, then whether it arrives is immaterial.
  • The offeror can exclude postage as a communication method.
  • The offeror can expressly/impliedly rescind the postal rule.

Instantaneous methods of communication

Clearly as time has progressed, postage being used as a method of communicating acceptance has become less frequent.  Various other instantaneous methods of communication (e.g. emailing) have instead replaced this older method of communication.

So does the postal rule apply to other methods of communication?

The short answer is no.  The rules surrounding instantaneous methods of communication focus on the receipt of the acceptance i.e. the moment it arrives at the offerors’ end of the relevant communicative technology.

The Courts will also closely examine the facts surrounding the typical contractual practices the parties adhere to, to determine whether the methods of communication relative to the receipt are in fact prescribed.

When does acceptance occur?

Tenax Steamship Co v Owners of the Motor Vessel Brimnes [1974] EWCA Civ 15, also highlights that similarly to the postal rule, the actual acceptance itself does not need to be acknowledged by the offeror for effective communication to be established. It merely needs to be received! 

The rationale surrounding this, similarly to the postal rule, is based on the Court attempting to balance the positions of the parties relative to the potential contract.

In Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl [1983] 2 AC 34 it was contended that if acceptance were limited to situations in which the offeror had the acceptance brought to their attention, it would convolute typical business arrangements.  Due to working hours being restricted and the relevant personnel not being directly contactable at all hours.

What happens if the acceptance is sent but it is not received?

Entores v Miles Far East Corp [1955] 2 QB 327 informs us that in situations where the offeror is at fault for the lack of receipt then the acceptance is still deemed to be effectively communicated.  If however there is no fault by either party for the lack of receipt, then the acceptance is not considered effectively communicated.

Remember:

  • The postal rule does not apply to methods of instantaneous methods of communication.
  • Acceptance only occurs on receipt.  If there is no receipt, then there is no effective communication, unless;
  • The lack of receipt is the fault of the offeror.
  • Always review the specific facts of the case!  If contractual offers between parties have always been accepted by email and the offeree sends a fax instead, is the method of communication considered prescribed?

Silence

Silence alone is not considered communication - Felthouse v Bindley [1862] EWHC CP J35.

If silence however, is also accompanied with particular types of conduct, then it could potentially amount to communication.  This is known as implied acceptance.  A type of situation where this could occur is best illustrated through a case example.

In Brogden v Metropolitan Railway (1877) 2 App Cas 666, a situation arose where parties had been dealing with each other for a long time on an informal basis.  It was decided by the parties that they should write-up a formal contract, the parties did not actually do this.  However, they did continue to operate as if the contract had been formalised with no objection as to this ‘contracts’ terms.  No express acceptance as to the contracts terms could therefore be found.  The Court however did not contend that there had been no acceptance.  The Court believed that as the parties has been acting in a manner than affirmed the contract existed through their conduct, then the contract must have been impliedly accepted.

Remember:

  • Silence does not equal acceptance.  There must be communication, unless;
  • The conduct of the parties indicates otherwise and acceptance can therefore be implied.
  • Always pay attention the particular facts of a scenario, situations of implied acceptance are often difficult to notice.

Unilateral Contracts

Unilateral offers as defined in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256 CA have a completely different method for effectively communicating acceptance (for more information on unilateral offers consult Chapter 1).

Communication is not in fact necessary to accept unilateral offers.  Due to the fact unilateral offers usually require some form of specific performance to be accepted.  Which means to effectively communicate acceptance in these situations, the conduct of the offeree is normally sufficient.

The best example of this type of acceptance occurs in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256 CA. Mrs. Carlil by using the “smoke ball” as prescribed by the term of the offer, provided the conduct necessary to accept the contract.

Things to consider when reviewing communication

The test to determine whether or not someone has accepted an offer is objective i.e. compared to standard of the reasonable man - Day Morris Associates v Voyce [2003] EWCA Civ 189.

In Scammell and Nephew v Ouston [1941] AC 251 HL, it was established that if the terms of an offer are not sufficient then it cannot be accepted, again an objective approach is adopted by the Courts in these situations.

The “Battle of the Forms”

Often in commercial contracts, the parties involved will employ standard terms whenever contacting.  This is done for obvious reasons, namely to save time, money etc.  If both parties have standard terms, then clearly a problem will arise.  If the parties continually agree to each other’s standard terms during their course of dealings, then which terms will the Court bind the parties to?  This is known as the “battle of the forms”.

It was decided in BRS v Arthur V Crutchley Ltd [1968] 1 All ER 811, that the Court would follow the last shot principle.  Simply defined as, the last set of terms agreed to by the parties would be the ones applied by the Court.  In this case, a party had agreed to deliver goods to the other.  On receipt of the goods a party signed a delivery note with terms attached.  The Court agreed these terms should be the ones that binds the parties, acknowledging that the previously agreed upon terms had been overridden by this acceptance.

Remember:

  • Always examine who the last person to accept contractual terms was.
  • Make sure to look at the actual terms agreed to and consider whether there are in fact other issues, such as the terms being a counter-offer - Butler Machine Tool v Ex-Cell- O Corporation [1979] 1 WLR 401 (CA).

End of acceptance period

Offers are not infinite i.e. all offers have different expiration periods, after which they cannot be accepted.

In Routledge v Grant [1828] 4 Bing 653 it was established that even if an offeree is given a timeframe in which they can accept the offer.  The offeree can still revoke the offer during that time as long as the revocation is communicated effectively.

Essentially, an offeror can revoke an offer at any point unless acceptance has been communicated - Hare v Nicholl (1966) 1 All ER 285.  Note that, in the case of unilateral offers, the offer cannot be revoked if the conduct of the parties has objectively evidenced communication.

An offers revocation also does not need to be communicated by the offeror, a reliable third party (objectively accessed) can sufficiently communicate said revocation - Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463.

What if the offeree changes their mind?

What would happen if the offeree decides that they want to revoke their acceptance of an offer? It is important to note there is no English/Welsh case law surrounding this topic area so all case decisions discussed here are persuasive.

It was held in Dunmore v Alexander (1830) 9 Sh 19 (a Scottish case) that postal acceptance can be revoked by a faster means of communication.  Clearly this decision contrasts with the idea that acceptance occurs at the moment of postage, and should therefore be discussed with caution.

A case from New Zealand that provides the opposing view – Wenkheim v Ardnt (1873) 1 JR 73.  In this case a postal acceptance was not revoked through the use of a telegram (a faster means of communication).

The presumption so far in the UK, although not affirmed.  Is that a revocation of acceptance through a faster means of communication will only be possible if it would not be unjust to the offeror to allow said revocation.

Death of the offeror

If either party dies before contract formation is complete then it cannot be accepted Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463.  As such, an offer cannot be accepted posthumously Bradbury v Morgan [1862] 158 ER 877.

Remember:

  • Normally offers can be revoked before acceptance is communicated or evidenced.
  • There is no EW case law on the relevant areas of revocation of acceptance, so approach this area with caution.
  • If one of the parties dies before acceptance, then the contract cannot be formalised.

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Invest In Your Future Today!
Place an Order