Offer and Acceptance

In the case of Adams v. Lindsell it established the postal rule which stated, acceptance is effective on posting, this means in some situations where a letter of acceptance was by post, the acceptance will be effective at the time and place of posting even if the offeror has no knowledge of this.
The issue in the case of Susan and Manesh is whether the postal rule applies. In the case of Quenerduaine v. Cole it stated where an offer was made by telegram and acceptance by post, it was not seen as reasonable that the postal rule should apply and therefore the acceptance took effect on receipt. This links closely to the case of Susan and Manesh as the issue is whether the postal rule applies. Although there was a firm acceptance of the offer, the fault came at the post office. Due to the fact that the offer was by email and the acceptance was by post, using the case of Quenerduiane, the acceptance of the coins takes place on receipt. Due to this factor that Susan never received the letter, there is no binding contract between Susan and Manesh as there are exceptions to the postal rule. In addition to this the mistake in posting takes effect against the party who made the mistake, Getreid v. Contimar.
In the case of Billy and Manesh the issue is shown through the case of Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl. In this case a telex of acceptance was made from London to Vienna, it was said in this case that the time at which the acceptance will take place depends on sound business practice. Manesh responds to Billy’s email shortly after midnight, this isn’t a reasonable time that business hours work. In addition to this Billy revoked the offer at the beginning of the working day, because of these factors there isn’t a binding contract between Billy and Manesh.
The issue regarding the case of Dean and Manesh is whether the text message is effective acceptance even if the way of acceptance was stated. This issue is shown through the case of Manchester Diocesan Council v.