acceptance
Part 4 - Acceptance
2012/// Filed in: Contract Law (UK)
Below are the most relevant principles and leading cases regarding “Acceptance:”
Felthouse v Bindley: Acceptance cannot not be made through silence. Acceptance needs to be communicated.
Tinn v Hoffman: Acceptance must be unconditional (acceptance of all the terms in the offer -i.e., mirror image of the offer).
Butler Machine Tool Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp Ltd & Tekdata Ltd v Amphenol Ltd: When contracting on standard terms resulting in a ``battle of the forms" the ``last shot" wins the battle.
Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General Investments: Offer can be accepted by any method no less convenient to the offeror than the acceptance method stipulated unless the offer clearly indicates that such method is the only possible method acceptable.
Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation: Acceptance must be communicated (i.e., in bilateral contracts the offeror must have knowledge of the acceptance except of a few exceptions listed below).
Adams v Lindsell: An acceptance by postal mail takes effect when it is posted (and not when it is communicated).
Household Fire Insurance v Grant: An acceptance by postal mail takes effect when it is posted (and not when it is communicated).
Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes: Offeror may avoid the postal rules by making a term of the offer that actual communication of the acceptance to the offeror is required (i.e., actual notice). The case also indicates the reservations of the courts to extend the applicability of the postal acceptance rule to other modern forms of communication.
The Brimnes & Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl GmbH: Acceptance is effective when as soon as it is received by telex during normal business hours even if the offeror does not read the communication. The courts refused to apply the postal acceptance rule to these forms of modern communication.
Felthouse v Bindley: Acceptance cannot not be made through silence. Acceptance needs to be communicated.
Tinn v Hoffman: Acceptance must be unconditional (acceptance of all the terms in the offer -i.e., mirror image of the offer).
Butler Machine Tool Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp Ltd & Tekdata Ltd v Amphenol Ltd: When contracting on standard terms resulting in a ``battle of the forms" the ``last shot" wins the battle.
Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General Investments: Offer can be accepted by any method no less convenient to the offeror than the acceptance method stipulated unless the offer clearly indicates that such method is the only possible method acceptable.
Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation: Acceptance must be communicated (i.e., in bilateral contracts the offeror must have knowledge of the acceptance except of a few exceptions listed below).
Adams v Lindsell: An acceptance by postal mail takes effect when it is posted (and not when it is communicated).
Household Fire Insurance v Grant: An acceptance by postal mail takes effect when it is posted (and not when it is communicated).
Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes: Offeror may avoid the postal rules by making a term of the offer that actual communication of the acceptance to the offeror is required (i.e., actual notice). The case also indicates the reservations of the courts to extend the applicability of the postal acceptance rule to other modern forms of communication.
The Brimnes & Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl GmbH: Acceptance is effective when as soon as it is received by telex during normal business hours even if the offeror does not read the communication. The courts refused to apply the postal acceptance rule to these forms of modern communication.