When is acceptance ‘received’?
On top of all the other problems with acceptance, we have further difficulties
with actual receipt of so many different methods of communicating. If, for
example, a telephone message is left on an answering machine, is it received
at that point, or when the owner of the telephone eventually plays back the
machine and listens to the message? What about a fax or telex machine, or
an e-mail account, which can also take messages during the whole of the
night and day, and is often set up specifically for that reason, especially in
companies who have international contacts?
Cheshire and Fifoot, the authors of a leading textbook on contract law,
suggest that, at least in a business context, it is reasonable to assume
that a letter which arrives in office hours is ‘received’ when it arrives, whether
or not it is opened immediately. The issue was discussed in The Brimnes (1974)
where it was suggested (obiter) that it is the responsibility of the recipient to
look for messages which are delivered during normal office hours.
Recall of acceptance
One point which sometimes arises regarding postal acceptance, and on
which there is no direct authority, is whether an offeree can recall his
acceptance (for example, by telephone or telegram) after he has posted it,
but before it reaches the offeror. According to the postal rule, acceptance
takes place as soon as the letter is posted, making a valid contract. It would
appear that the offeror cannot then go back and attempt to withdraw, even if
it is by a speedier method. However, it is also true to say that allowing
withdrawal of acceptance would not at this stage disadvantage the offeror
(see comments in Yates Building v Pulleyn) since he does not know of it.
The Scottish case Countess of Dunmore v Alexander (1830) seems
to indicate that a postal acceptance may be retracted by a faster method of
communication. However, in the South African case of A to Z Bazaars v
Minister of Agriculture (1974) it was held that such an attempt was
not effective.
Certainty in a contract
The terms of a contract must not be vague and the law does try to bring
together the intentions of parties, so there must be agreement over the central,
core, issues of a bargain. The following three cases relate to this point.
Offer and acceptance 31Guthing v Lynn (1831)
A promise to pay more money to the seller of a horse if it proved to be
‘lucky’ to the buyer was held to be too vague to be legally enforceable.