Abstract

Purpose – This paper focuses on the application of the postal rule to email, due to the controversy surrounding the application of the “instantaneous” test to emails.
 Methodology/approach/design – This article analyses standards and literature on the formation of contract under English law. 
 Findings – Although the postal rule is an invention of its time, this rule could still play a role regarding emails. Indeed, due to the difficulties in applying the “instantaneous” test to emails, emails would still be subject to the postal rule. Of course, the postal rule in its current form is no more fitting the reality. However, the benefits that such rule provides should not be lost, instead a new rule could be drafted based on the postal rule.
 Practical implications – This article discusses the possible improvements to the already existing framework.
 Originality/value – This paper analyses the use of the postal rule to electronic contracts in the UK, a topic that is not much researched but could have great importance when doing electronic business.

Highlights

  • A central requisite to the formation of a contract is necessity for an offer and acceptance

  • The general rule stipulates that acceptance must be communicated and received by the offeror

  • The postal rule is an exception to this general rule, as held in (Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft mbH, 1983)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

A central requisite to the formation of a contract is necessity for an offer and acceptance. If the postal rule applies to email, it means that similar revocation issues will exist, as normally the offeror can no longer revoke his offer once the acceptance has been posted. In order to decide whether the postal rule could be applied to emails, it is important to keep the general rule on contract formation and especially that for the acceptance to be valid, the offeror must have received a notice. The court concluded that the contract was made when the acceptance was received by the plaintiffs because: “(...) so far as telex messages are concerned, though the dispatch and receipt of a message is not completely instantaneous, the parties are to all intents and purposes in each other’s presence just as if they were in telephone communication, and I can see no reason for departing from the general rule that there is no binding contract until notice of the acceptance was received by the offeror”. The author sees the postal rule as a premise of consumer protection, by allocating the risk on the offeror

Conclusion
At paragraph 42
Discussion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.