If one of the parties acts under the contract or performs the contract instead of simply saying “yes”, performance is considered acceptance as long as the performance is in accordance with the intentions of both parties. Suppose A offers B to pay $10 if B mows A`s lawn. B mows the lawn instead of saying “yes.” Performance by B is implicitly regarded as acceptance of the contract, although B has never expressly consented. Sometimes the recipient`s behavior can be an expression of acceptance. In such cases, it would not be a defence to say that the party did not intend to enter into a legally binding agreement. Courts often refer to correspondence between the parties when deciding whether an acceptance has taken place. If one party makes another believe that a contract exists, when in fact a contract does not exist, there is still no presumption. Instead, another legal doctrine, estoppel to order, will control the case. The mailbox rule can cause particular difficulties for business people, since the acceptance is effective even if the supplier is not aware of the acceptance, and even if the letter is lost and never arrives. But the solution is the same as the justification for the rule. In the case of contracts negotiated by mail order, there will always be a burden on one of the parties. If the rule was that the acceptance takes effect only after it has been received by the tenderer, then the addressee would be in abeyance and not the other way around, as is the case with this rule.
In the relationship between the two, it seems fairer to place the burden on the provider, since he alone has the power to determine the timing of efficiency. The supplier only needs to indicate in the offer that acceptance will only take effect upon receipt. The use of postal service is common, so assumptions are considered effective when sent by mail, regardless of how the offer is transmitted. In fact, the so-called common law letterbox rule states that adoption is effective if it is filed by mail. has a lineage dating back more than a hundred years to the English courts. Adams v. Lindsell, 1 Barnewall & Alderson 681 (K.B. 1818).
(iii) It should be presented in a reasonable manner, unless the proposal prescribes the manner in which it is to be adopted. If the supplier does not prescribe any type of acceptance, the assumptions must be communicated in a customary and reasonable manner. The usual forms of communication are oral or written or by behavior, this is called implicit acceptance. Written, for example, The supplier accepts the acceptance by telegram and sends the acceptance offered by a messenger, there is no acceptance of the offer. However, if the tenderer does not insist on the manner in which the tender has been accepted by other means, it shall be presumed that he has accepted that acceptance. However, the law does not allow silence to be a form of acceptance. The provider cannot therefore say that if no response is received, the offer is considered accepted. Section 8 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 provides that acceptance by the conduct or actions of the promisor is acceptable. Thus, if a person takes certain actions that communicate that he or she has accepted the offer, such implied acceptance is permitted. So if A agrees to buy 100 bales of hay from B for 1000/- and B sends the goods, his action means that he has accepted the offer. The general rule is that a contract is formed as soon as acceptance is communicated. Currently, both parties are bound by the contract.
The exception is the so-called mailbox rule, which states that an acceptance sent by mail takes effect when it is sent by mail and not when it is received. This regulation applies only to the acceptance of the contract. This means that after sending a letter of acceptance, the offer cannot be revoked even if the supplier has not yet received the acceptance. So, if A offers to supply goods to B and B accepts all the conditions. He writes a letter to accept the offer, but forgets to send the letter. Since the acceptance is not communicated, it is not valid. The identity of the recipient is usually clear, even if the name is unknown. The person to whom a promise is made is usually the person to whom the bidder intends to make a counter-promise or perform the requested action. But this is not always the case.
A promise can be made to a person who is not supposed to do anything in return. The consideration necessary to weld the offer and acceptance into a legally valid contract may be provided by a third party. At common law, the person who is invited to lend consideration to the bidder is the addressee and only one recipient can accept a bid. A common example is the sale to a minor. George promises to sell his car to Bartley, who is seventeen, if Bartley`s father promises to pay George $3,500. Bartley is the promisor (the person to whom the promise is made), but not the recipient; Bartley cannot legally accept George`s offer. Only Bartley`s father, who is asked to pay for the car, can accept by making the requested promise. And notice what may seem obvious: a promise to fulfill as required in the offer is in itself a binding acceptance. If the recipient first sends a rejection and then submits a substitute acceptance, the “effective upon receipt” rule also applies. Suppose a seller offers a buyer two cords of firewood and the listing remains open for a week. On the third day, the buyer writes to the seller and rejects the offer.
The next evening, the buyer reconsiders his firewood needs, and on the morning of the fifth day, he sends an email accepting the seller`s conditions. The letter previously sent arrives the next day. As the letter had not yet been received, the offer had not been rejected. For a valid contract to be concluded, the acceptance sent by e-mail must arrive before the refusal sent by post. If the email was hung in cyberspace, albeit through no fault of the buyer, so that the letter arrived first, the seller would rightly assume that the offer was terminated – even if the email arrived a minute later. In short, where “acceptance trumps rejection”, adoption is effective. See Figure 9.1. After an offer to conclude a contract has been made, the other party must accept the offer before entering into a contract. There are several rules for accepting a contract offer: electronic communication has, of course, become increasingly common.
Many contracts are negotiated, accepted and “signed” electronically by email. In general, this does not change the rules. The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) is a U.S. law that makes electronic contracts generally valid and contracts enforceable. was enacted in 1999 (i.e. circulated for adoption by States). It is one of many uniform laws, such as the Uniform Commercial Code. As of June 2010, forty-seven states and the U.S. Virgin Islands had adopted the statute. The introduction to the law states: “The purpose of UETA is to remove barriers to e-commerce by validating and retaining electronic records and signatures.” The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (1999) (Denver: National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 1999), accessed March 29, 2011, www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/fnact99/1990s/ueta99.pdf. In general, UETA offers the following: As an example of the first type of acceptance through silence, suppose a carpenter walks past your house and sees a porch collapse. He discovers you in the front yard and shows you the decomposition.
“I`m a professional carpenter,” he says, “and between jobs. I can fix this porch for you. Someone should. They don`t say anything. He gets to work. There is an implied contract, according to which the work must be done for the usual carpenter`s fees. A therefore proposes to sell his farm to B for ten lakhs. He asked B to send his reply by mail.
About The Author
