Firstly, a posted acceptance prevails over a previously posted withdrawal of the offer which had not yet reached the offeree when the acceptance was posted. On that note, if you are a researcher or a student and you really want to know the exceptions to the rule in Adams v Lindsell then relax and read this work painstakingly. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. This piece will explain the facts which occurred in Adams v Lindsell and what the court decided. This is another key exception to the rule in Adams v Lindsell. All rights reserved. It was established in evidence that if the letter of offer had been correctly addressed, a reply would have been expected “in the course of post” by 7 September. Even if the letter was mislaid or lost and does not reach the offeror. This particular case made the law even more confusing as there were now separate rules for the postal rule with regard to offers and revocation of offers. The postal rule was first used inAdams v Linsellto mean that acceptance takes place once a letter of acceptance is posted by the offeree. There have been several justifications according to Simon Gardner in his article “Trashing with Trollope” for this rule none of which have been satisfactory. Adams wrote to Lindsell offering to sell him 800 tods of wool. This is the landmark case from which the mailbox rule is derived. Email Address: You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, If you have not signed up for your Casebriefs Cloud account Click Here, Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student with Casebriefs™. Horse Enterprises, Inc. As each new method of communication has emerged, the courts have been compelled to determine the applicability of the postal acceptance rule. Adams v Lindsell [1818] EWHC KB J59 < Back. Clear wording is required if the method of communication is to be mandatory. A further theory for the existence of the postal rule as adopted in Adams v Lindsell is that if the offeror, either expressly or impliedly, indicates that postal acceptance is sufficient then they should bear the consequences of the postal rule, as the defendant did in Adams v Lindsell. Bargaining at a distance, typically through the mail, created a problem, because the parties could not know at the same time whether they had formed acontract. Another important exception to the rule in Adams v Lindsell is where the letter was actually posted wrongly. For instance, some legal schorlars posit that since the post office is the common agent of both parties, a letter put in the post is technically acceptance communicated to the offeror. Where this is the case, the Acceptance does not take effect at the moment of posting, but at the moment when the letter reaches the offeror. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. Another theory is that without the rule an offeree would not be able to know for certain whether they had actually entered into a contract or not. The defendant was therefore liable in breach of contrack The ‘postal rule’ inAdams v Lindsellhas since been confirmed in Household Fire and CarriageAccident InsuranceCo v Grant (1879) 4 EX D 216 where the defendant applied for some shares in a company. The plaintiff sent his acceptance by through the standardpost service. Also in Dick v US, this rule was also not applied. This is unacceptable as the post office is merely the conduit by which letters pass through. This example has been uploaded by a student. It can be seen that in all cases one of the parties is going to suffer hardship, and the rule in Adams v Lindsell results in this party being the offeror rather than the offeree. The Defendants disagreed, stating that acceptance did not occur until it was communicated to the offeror (which was the standard approach at the time). The 'postal rule' in Adams v Lindsell has since been confirmed in Household Fire and Carriage Accident Insurance Co v Grant (1879) 4 EX D 216 where the defendant applied for some shares in a company. Our editors will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+! It didn’t matter whether the letter got to him. In Yates Building Co v RJ Pulleyn (1975) the acceptance was to be sent by “registered or recordeddelivery post”. The judges ruled in this case in favour of the plaintiff. We have experts for any subject. Also read: Mojekwu v Mojekwu (Most read Nigerian case on customary law). Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. If you are the original author of this content and no longer wish to have it published on our website then please click on the link below to request removal: Essay UK offers students a complete range of free resources for undergraduate, post graduate, PhD and professional courses. This ruling was appealed and the court further outlined the findings by stating the offeror did not state that the only method of acceptance as outlined would be binding. DEFINITION OF ACCEPTENCE A contractual agreement on a time draft or sight draft to pay the amount due at a specified date. On 2 September, the Defendants wrote to the Plaintiffs with an offer to sell some wool. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE ChapterScope Synopsis of Rule of Law. Adams v Lindselltherefore has three consequences in English law. Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. The decision was based on the fact that an acceptance of an offer could go on ad infinitum, back and forth between the parties. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. When offers are made via mail, acceptance is complete upon mailing. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. It is often thought by students to have set a rather strange precedent. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. These are the exceptions to the rule in Adams v Lindsell (Also known as the the Postal rule). A banker’s acceptance is a time draft honored by a bank, and is typically used in international trade. Issue. In a trade acceptance, the buyer is the acceptor. The letter was delayed in the post. Your email address will not be published. Britton v. Turner A few days later, Lindsell wrote back agreeing to the offer. Another area the postal rule was rigorously tested was where the original offer was withdrawn or revoked. Adams asked for a response within two weeks. More recently, Adams v Lindsell has been reinforced by Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl and Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft GmbH [1983] 2 AC 34 where it was held that acceptance is effective when it is placed in the control of the Post Office, ie. Also read:Best lawyers in Nigeria: Leading legal practitioners in NigeriaSee the 7 Pillars of democracy. The Defendants, wool dealers, sent a letter to Plaintiffs, wool manufactures, offering to sell them fleeces, upon receipt of their acceptance in the course of post. It was not delivered until 7.30 pm. Embry v. Hargadine-McKittrick Dry Goods Co. (1907) More importantly it weakens the doctrine of consensus at idem (meeting of minds) for a contract to take place as well as the mirror theory that there must be a definite offer mirrored by a definite acceptance. Law J held that it was not feasible for the usual rule (that acceptance occurs when it is communicated to the offeror) to apply where there is posted communication as it would be too burdensome. It would seem that even with more modern technologies there is still proof of posting does not guarantee that there has been acceptance. In writer’s view it is essential to also asses the rule applicable to revocation of contract as the technology development has changed the way how and when the acceptance takes place and therefore it can be often discriminatory to bind offeror and leave alternatives largely open for the offeree. Finally, the contract is taken to have been made at the time of posting so as to take priority over another contract made after the original acceptance was posted CONCLUSION It is evident that the arguments relating to retention or desertion of the general rule are advanced; it is also clear from the aforementioned that in order to provide the valid conclusion the legislators have to consider many aspects of communication that is conducted by electronic means.