b)
S4H posted a letter to Musiclive on 15th Septmer 2015 accepting their proposal to organize promotion activities. They also sent another letter to Promomusic informing them that they were unsuccessful and the letter arrived on the 16th. Due to a printing error in the postal code on the letter to Musiclive, the letter arrived two days later on the 7th. Immediately after posting the letter to Musiclive, S4H discovered that Musiclive had a marketing contract with one of its competitors and emailed them informing them that they no longer wished to proceed. On the same day they emailed Promomusic informing them they would like to proceed with the marketing contract but Promomusic did not see the email until after the letter had arrived. The issue …show more content…
In Stevenson, Jacques & Co v McLean, the defendant offered to sell iron to the plaintiff through a telegram. After receiving the telegram the plaintiff sent a telegram to the defendant asking to accept the stated price for a duration of two months or the longest limit it would allow. The defendant did not respond to the telegram and sold the iron to another party on the same day. The defendant later sent a telegram to the plaintiff informing him that all the iron had been sold. Before the plaintiff received the telegram, he sent a telegram to the defendant accepting the offer. The plaintiff sued for non-delivery. The issue in this case is whether the defendant’s telegram effectively revoked the offer although it was not received by the plaintiff before he made the acceptance. The court held that a revocation is not effective until it is received by the person to whom the offer was made. Because the plaintiff had not received the revocation at the time he sent a telegram of acceptance, the original offer stood and the plain tiffs acceptance constituted a valid contract. The implication of this decision is that it is possible to post a letter of acceptance after a letter of revocation is posted but before it is received and the acceptance will form a valid contract as soon as it is posted. The postal rule does not apply to instantaneous communications such as emails for acceptance. In Entores Ltd v Miles, the court held that the rule of instantaneous communication is different from postal rule and a contract is made when the acceptance arrives. In such cases, a contract cannot be formed until the other party receives the acceptance. The postal rule is based on the principle of convenience where acceptance is considered complete when the letter is handed to the post
S4H posted a letter to Musiclive on 15th Septmer 2015 accepting their proposal to organize promotion activities. They also sent another letter to Promomusic informing them that they were unsuccessful and the letter arrived on the 16th. Due to a printing error in the postal code on the letter to Musiclive, the letter arrived two days later on the 7th. Immediately after posting the letter to Musiclive, S4H discovered that Musiclive had a marketing contract with one of its competitors and emailed them informing them that they no longer wished to proceed. On the same day they emailed Promomusic informing them they would like to proceed with the marketing contract but Promomusic did not see the email until after the letter had arrived. The issue …show more content…
In Stevenson, Jacques & Co v McLean, the defendant offered to sell iron to the plaintiff through a telegram. After receiving the telegram the plaintiff sent a telegram to the defendant asking to accept the stated price for a duration of two months or the longest limit it would allow. The defendant did not respond to the telegram and sold the iron to another party on the same day. The defendant later sent a telegram to the plaintiff informing him that all the iron had been sold. Before the plaintiff received the telegram, he sent a telegram to the defendant accepting the offer. The plaintiff sued for non-delivery. The issue in this case is whether the defendant’s telegram effectively revoked the offer although it was not received by the plaintiff before he made the acceptance. The court held that a revocation is not effective until it is received by the person to whom the offer was made. Because the plaintiff had not received the revocation at the time he sent a telegram of acceptance, the original offer stood and the plain tiffs acceptance constituted a valid contract. The implication of this decision is that it is possible to post a letter of acceptance after a letter of revocation is posted but before it is received and the acceptance will form a valid contract as soon as it is posted. The postal rule does not apply to instantaneous communications such as emails for acceptance. In Entores Ltd v Miles, the court held that the rule of instantaneous communication is different from postal rule and a contract is made when the acceptance arrives. In such cases, a contract cannot be formed until the other party receives the acceptance. The postal rule is based on the principle of convenience where acceptance is considered complete when the letter is handed to the post