Acceptance Evaluation

• Method - Postal rule

  • if method has been insisted, must be accpeted - unfair
  • registered or recorded was more expensive and tracked, harsh, Yates v Pulleyn
  • strict, unfair, may not receive the letter but still would be acceptance, arrive late, Adams v Lindsall
  • however, offers rarely accepted by post, offeror would be aware of any drawbacks from this method
• Method - Modern Technology

  • acceptance when received, unfair - may have a lot of emails and not actually see it
  • increase in working from home during COVID, working hours can be blurred, cause 'confusion'
  • electric/online contracts - complicated, don't know whether they have to reply
  • significant legislation - rules on withdrawal and cancellations, Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulation 2000
  • only binding if parties are fully informed, not guaranteed to be read, automated responses, Consumer Protection Act 2015
• Communication

  • silence is not enough, harsh, 'acceptance via silence' is not a valid form of acceptance, unfair, Felthouse v Brindley
  • verbal/written acceptance - provides evidence of offeree's intentions clearly, protects parties, fair
  • unilateral offers - acceptance via performance, exception to communication, offeror will be unaware of conduct, unfair, Carlil v Carbolic Smokeball Co
  • Law Commission 1975 - offer that the offeror has said will be open for a specific period should not be revocable within that period
• Unconditional

  • positive - must be accepted unconditionally without any alterations, offeree is certain they agreed to it in its entirety
  • House of Lords - occasionally, if there is a counter-offer, acceptance can be via conduct even if counter offer, acceptance due to conduct, Brogden v Metropolitan Railway