Yes, this is an enforceable contract. Postal rule is one of the rules of contract law that makes an exception to the general rule that an acceptance can only occur when communicated directly to the offeror. This is considered a legal binding contract as the acceptance match with the offer. It is an enforceable contract due to reasons mentioned below.
4 elements of a contract
The elements to create a legally binding contract are as follows;
1. Legal capacity – a person above 18 years of age and both parties cannot be intoxicated nor have any mental illness is able to make a contract.
2. Agreement – form from an offer and an acceptance.
3. Consideration – exchange of some value that has been agreed by two parties
4. Intention to …show more content…
When Naiker saw this offer he was overjoyed and in order not to miss the opportunity of buying the piano he immediately posted his letter of acceptance on Friday 6 June. Naiker’s letter only reached Ahmad on Monday 9 June.” This means that even though the letter of acceptance to Ahmad was delayed, it is still considered as acceptance according to the postal rule.
The postal rule states that;
1. There is an acceptance once the offeree replies the letter and put it in the mailbox.
2. The address and stamp is correct.
Naiker did accept the offer, by mailing out the letter with the right address and stamp. Whether or not Ahmad is aware that Naiker has accepted the offer, this is still a legally binding contract between the two of them as all four elements of a contract as mentioned above are met.
Another reason that made it an enforceable contract is, under the rule of Termination of Offer: Ahmad can revoke the contract at any time before an acceptance is made but it should be noted that the revocation must be directly/indirectly communicated. However Ahmad did not inform about the revocation of the contract with Naiker and had readily sold the item to Janice. Ahmad did not revoke the contract. He just assumed that Naiker was not interested in the piano as he did not receive any response from Naiker in …show more content…
When the contract is performed, it will be a different contract than the initial one.
3. None of the parties are responsible for the event that happened. - Neither party caused the lightning to strike the hall and the piano in it.
An example of Discharge by Frustration;
Under Destruction of the Subject Matter – in the case of Taylor v Caldwell (1863): the court said that destruction of subject matter of the contract made the contract not possible to be carried out and hence discharging the contract. Ahmad is not able to make any claims for the damages done as once the concert hall burnt down along with his piano, the contract fell into the clause of Discharge of Frustration.
With reference to the above mentioned clause, neither of the parties was responsible to the destruction of the Concert Hall, including Ahmad’s piano. Ahmad is not able to claim for the damages made to his piano due to the following factors:
1. Force Majeure Clause
a. This clause excuses the party from performing any contractual obligations as an unforeseeable event has happened.
2. Discharge by Frustration
a. Neither party was responsible for the destruction of place and