Issues
It is seen in this case study that Adam has reneged on his offer to sell his motor car for £1000, made to the world at large through public advertisement. The main issues are (i) whether Adam was legally correct in refusing both the offers made by Ben and Carol (2) in the event that Adam was legally wrong in refusing to sell his car, who could make valid claims for damages, Ben, Carol, or both.
Arguments
In the case of offers made through public advertisements, the offer made by Adam is not directed to any particular individual, or group of individuals, but to the world at large. Thus any member of the public is entitled to accept the offer made by Adam through public notice.
S offers £500 to anybody who finds and returns her lost dog. If T hunts and finds the dog, he is entitled to the reward of £500. No specific acceptance need to be conveyed to Adam. Similarly in this case, Carol had offered a cheque of £1000 to Adam, after inspecting his car. Thus, the offer has been accepted by conduct and the offer should hold good. The only excuse Adam could possibly give was that he had offered the car to the first person who made acceptance, and Carol was not the first person to do so.
It could have been Ben since his letter of acceptance was in transmission before Carol’s offer. Ben had sent his letter of acceptance by post on Saturday when he happened to read the advertisement inserted by Adam.
In effect, the Post Office becomes his agent and as far as his conduct is concerned, for all intents and purposes, his acceptance is completed once his letter of acceptance has been handed over to the Post Office and was being sent to Adam.
Under the Mailbox rule acceptance is completed once the letter of Acceptance is posted to the offeror. “Rule of postal acceptance is that acceptance takes place when posted.”
This cardinal law of postal services was reinforced in the leading case of Household Fire and Carriage v. Grant (1879) in which it was ruled that “ an acceptance of the offer by post occurs at the moment of posting, not when the acceptance is received.” (The K-Zone: Household Fire Insurance v Grant (1879)
It could be argued by Adam that he had revoked his offer and decided not to sell his car. In such circumstances, it is necessary that he gives notice of revocation to individuals, groups of individuals or the world at large. In this case, the notice of revocation was not conveyed to the offeree, Ben. This aspect was argued in the case of Byrne v. Van Tienhoven (1880) 5 CPD 344 where the Courts finally held that “that an Offer to contract cannot be considered withdrawn until the offeree has received it.” (The K-Zone: (Byrne v Van Tienhoven [1880] )
Conclusions
In this case, Ben had posted his letter of acceptance before the conduct of acceptance by Carol. Thus it may be claimed that Ben has greater rights over the car than Carol since his letter of acceptance was posted before Carol negotiated the deal with Adam.
Thus, Ben could bring action against Ben for breach of contract for (1) not informing regarding revocation of his car sale offer before Ben’s acceptance and (2) not honoring Ben’s request.
Another aspect that could be seen in this case would be in terms of the fact that since Adam had not specifically mentioned the mode of acceptance by the world at large; as such, Ben’s acceptance could be seen to be perfectly legal and acceptable.
Held, Adam could be held liable to Ben for damages under breach of contractual obligations. Since Carol is only the second claimant, and the advertisement clearly mentions the first person, and not subsequent persons, her claims for damages are not tenable under English contract laws.
Cited Works
Law of Contract: Communication of Acceptance: postal acceptance. Web.
The K-Zone: Household Fire Insurance v Grant (1879). Web.
The K-Zone: (Byrne v Van Tienhoven [1880] 5 CPD 344). Web.