Words: 1166
Books, Latex Ltd and Typos Ltd. In order to differ which of these relations finally constitute concluded contracts, we will proceed to evaluate each case individually to establish whether the essential elements of a contract (offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relations) are validly fulfilled or not. As soon as one of those essential elements is not validly fulfilled, we can conclude there is no valid contract between the parties. There appears to be a valid offer in the contract between Bangor University and Academia Ltd for the latter to supply 500 textbooks to the former at a cost of
E 10,000 because there seems to be a complete oral statement of the willingness of the former to be bound by the terms of that statement once these terms are, in turn, accepted by Academia Ltd . However, Academia Ltd’ s response introducing a new price and asking for Bangor University ‘ s acceptance seems not to be an acceptance but a counter-offer, which has the effect to “kill off’ Bangor University’ s offer, as it can be seen in Hyde v Wrench . Then, Bangor University was entitled to accept or to reject the counter-offer made by Academia Ltd.
Moreover, Academia Ltd stated that if they did not wherefrom Bangor University by 8 am on October 7th, they would assume that Bangor University had accepted the deal. However, the general rule is that an offer cannot impose a contractual obligation upon the offered by stating that, unless the offered expressly rejects the offer, it would be understood as an acceptance, as it can be seen in Flophouse v Bindle. Therefore, some positive action is required on the part of the offered to provide evidence that he has in fact accepted the offer.
Bangor University did not stop looking for textbooks supplier, so there does not seem to be any evidence of acceptance from Bangor University ‘ s behavior. [1840 3 BEA 334. [1862] 11 CB(NSA) 869. Therefore, it seems that no valid acceptance has occurred so it is likely that there is no contract between Bangor University and Academia Ltd. There seems to be a valid offer between Bangor University and Carlton Books because there seems to be a complete oral statement of the willingness of the former to be bound by the terms of that statement once these terms are, in turn, accepted by Carlton Books.
However, there is a problem with the communication of the acceptance. The general rule that applies when the acceptance is sent by cost, which can be traced back to Adams v linseed’s, is that acceptance takes place when the letter of acceptance is posted by the offered, as it seems to be in this current case. Furthermore, English law is presently committed to the view that a contract is concluded on the posting of the letter of acceptance even where it gets lost in the post.
Even known there are some different points of views and exceptions to the implementation of the general rule, as can be seen in Mason v Beneath Coal CO, where the reason of the loss of the letter is that it has been incorrectly addressed by the offered, as it has been by Carlton Books in he current case, acceptance does not take place on posting because the offer may not take the further risk of carelessness by the offered, as it can be seen in Sorbet’s v Transpiring Shipping BIB. As a consequence, it seems that no valid acceptance has occurred until October 8th.
Once the acceptance has taken place, and given that it is likely that there is consideration and intention to create legal relations, there seems to be a valid contract between Bangor University and Carlton Books. There appears to be a valid offer between Bangor University and Latex Ltd former to be bound by the terms of that statement once these terms are, in urn, accepted by Latex Ltd. However there seems to be a problem with the communication of the acceptance, which was sent by e-mail.
The implementation of the Postal Rule by courts has been problematic with the proliferation of instantaneous communications. Lord Dinning stated that “the rule about instantaneous 3 [1818] 1 B&Ald 681. 1882 9 R 883 5 [2005] CHEW 1345 (CB) at [15) 4 communications between the parties is different from the rule about the post. The contract is only complete when the acceptance is received by the offer "6. It is also remarkable the Medial Shipping v Started case in which it was stated hat "what matters not is when the notice is given/sent/dispatched/issued. UT when its content reaches the mind of [the recipient]. If the telex is sent in ordinary business hours, the time of receipt is the same as the time of dispatch” Gatehouse J. Because the email was received at 10. 30 pm on October 6th, it is submitted that the acceptance is received first thing in the morning October 7th. We should also analyses the revocation of the offer made by Bangor University, which was made by telephone at 3 pm on October 6th but due to the fault of a Latex Ltd. Employee, it was not received by Latex Ltd. Until 9 am on 7 October.
Therefore, there seems to be a timing problem between the revocation of the offer and the acceptance. However, it is likely that the revocation was effective when the message was left on the answering machine at pm on October 6th because the staff should have seen the revocation during office hours, as it is stated in The Primness. Therefore it is likely that there is a valid revocation so there is no contract between Bangor University and Latex Ltd. There seems to be a valid offer, a valid acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relations between Bangor University and Typos Ltd.
Therefore it is keel that a valid contract between the former and the latter does exist. To conclude, we will try to advise the parties of each relation separately. It is likely that no valid contract is concluded between Bangor University and Academia Ltd, therefore, Bangor University should return the shipment received from the latter. There seems to be a valid contract between Bangor University and Carlton Book since the letter of acceptance was received by the former on 8 October.
Therefore, Carlton Books may ask Bangor University to pay the amount of money agreed by the terms of the contract. However, it 6 Mentors v Miles Far East co [195[1955]B 327 1995] CLC 1011 8 [197[1975]929 7 seems Bangor University to be in trouble because it has entered into two contracts to be supplied the same product; Bangor University could allege that his offer was terminated by lapse of the time. Nonetheless, as it was Bangor who asked Carlton Books to send the acceptance in writing, and, as the lapse of time is only of six days, this allegation is not really likely to succeed.