- Published on
Legal Terms - Acceptance
Acceptance is the act of agreeing to the terms of an offer, which, if certain other conditions are met, turns the offer into a legally enforceable contract. If the means of indicating acceptance is specified
According to the case of Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155 (CA), it is stated that only the technique chosen by the offeror will be considered effective. If the acceptance is not explicitly stated, it can be either expressed (through spoken or written words) or implied from the actions of the offeree. For instance, if the offeree receives products for evaluation and begins using them, it can be inferred as acceptance (Beta Computers (Europe) Ltd v Adobe Systems (Europe) Ltd [1996] FSR 367). In order for an offer to be considered accepted, the person to whom the offer was made must take some form of action. The offeror cannot claim that their offer has been accepted unless the offeree explicitly rejects it (Felthouse v Bindley, 1862). If an offer is presented that replicates the conditions for accepting an existing offer, it is considered a cross-offer. However, a contract will not be established unless this cross-offer is accepted, as stated in the case of Tinn v Hoffmann & Co (1873) 29 LT 271. The validity of an acceptance is determined by four main rules:
The occurrence must happen while the offer is still valid, that is, before it has expired (see expiration of offer) or been withdrawn (see withdrawal of offer).
The conditions must be identical to those of the offer. If an acceptance is made with the condition of any change, it is considered as a counteroffer.
An acceptance subject to contract is not considered a valid acceptance since it lacks the necessary condition of being unconditional.
The communication must be conveyed to the offeror and becomes valid upon receipt. The postal rule, as established in the case of Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681, 106 ER 250, states that acceptance is considered communicated when the letter is mailed. However, this rule applies only if both parties are aware that the postal service is a probable mode of communication, as confirmed in the case of Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27 (CA). This principle also applies in cases when the letter is lost and not delivered, as established in the case of Household Fire Insurance [1879] 4 Ex D 108. However, it is important to note that this only applies if the letter was correctly addressed, as stated in the case of LJ Korbetis v Transgrain Shipping BV [2005] EWHC 134 (QB). Telex, as established in the case of Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp [1955] 2 QB 327, and likely electronic messaging, as seen in the case of Thomas v BPE Solicitors [2010] EWHC 306, are considered equivalent to the telephone. Therefore, acceptance of a communication is deemed to occur upon receipt, even if it is outside of business hours. Additionally, it is irrelevant whether the recipient has the authority to act, as stated in the case of Brinikbon v Stahag Stahl [1983] 2 AC 34.
Nevertheless, if the offer includes a commitment to provide an advantage to anyone who carries out a specific action, the person making the offer gives up the need for separate communication. In the given scenario, if he were to provide a reward in exchange for information, it is not anticipated that a person capable of providing the information would need to accept the offer in a formal manner. The act of providing the information includes the acceptance, transmission of the acceptance, and fulfillment of the contract (New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v Satterthwaite (AM) & Co Ltd [1975] AC 154 (PC)).
Acceptance is the act of agreeing to the terms of an offer, which, if certain other conditions are met, turns the offer into a legally enforceable contract. If the means of indicating acceptance is specified
According to the case of Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155 (CA), it is stated that only the technique chosen by the offeror will be considered effective. If the acceptance is not explicitly stated, it can be either expressed (through spoken or written words) or implied from the actions of the offeree. For instance, if the offeree receives products for evaluation and begins using them, it can be inferred as acceptance (Beta Computers (Europe) Ltd v Adobe Systems (Europe) Ltd [1996] FSR 367). In order for an offer to be considered accepted, the person to whom the offer was made must take some form of action. The offeror cannot claim that their offer has been accepted unless the offeree explicitly rejects it (Felthouse v Bindley, 1862). If an offer is presented that replicates the conditions for accepting an existing offer, it is considered a cross-offer. However, a contract will not be established unless this cross-offer is accepted, as stated in the case of Tinn v Hoffmann & Co (1873) 29 LT 271. The validity of an acceptance is determined by four main rules:
The occurrence must happen while the offer is still valid, that is, before it has expired (see expiration of offer) or been withdrawn (see withdrawal of offer).
The conditions must be identical to those of the offer. If an acceptance is made with the condition of any change, it is considered as a counteroffer.
An acceptance subject to contract is not considered a valid acceptance since it lacks the necessary condition of being unconditional.
The communication must be conveyed to the offeror and becomes valid upon receipt. The postal rule, as established in the case of Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681, 106 ER 250, states that acceptance is considered communicated when the letter is mailed. However, this rule applies only if both parties are aware that the postal service is a probable mode of communication, as confirmed in the case of Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27 (CA). This principle also applies in cases when the letter is lost and not delivered, as established in the case of Household Fire Insurance [1879] 4 Ex D 108. However, it is important to note that this only applies if the letter was correctly addressed, as stated in the case of LJ Korbetis v Transgrain Shipping BV [2005] EWHC 134 (QB). Telex, as established in the case of Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp [1955] 2 QB 327, and likely electronic messaging, as seen in the case of Thomas v BPE Solicitors [2010] EWHC 306, are considered equivalent to the telephone. Therefore, acceptance of a communication is deemed to occur upon receipt, even if it is outside of business hours. Additionally, it is irrelevant whether the recipient has the authority to act, as stated in the case of Brinikbon v Stahag Stahl [1983] 2 AC 34.
Nevertheless, if the offer includes a commitment to provide an advantage to anyone who carries out a specific action, the person making the offer gives up the need for separate communication. In the given scenario, if he were to provide a reward in exchange for information, it is not anticipated that a person capable of providing the information would need to accept the offer in a formal manner. The act of providing the information includes the acceptance, transmission of the acceptance, and fulfillment of the contract (New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v Satterthwaite (AM) & Co Ltd [1975] AC 154 (PC)).
0 Comments