Limitation of postal rule
There should, however, be a further reflection of the restriction on the postal rule that it only applied where it was reasonable to use the post.
This however, does not apply to the postal rule. These issues must be returned to below, and an overall view taken on the postal rule, and its extension to e-mail, after consideration of whether there are further explanations, which justify its impact beyond the revocation issue.
Lastly, another problem in regards to the postal rule is that the courts have chosen to widen the scope of exceptions to the general rule and thus uncertainty is increased as it can be difficult to determine when these exceptions should apply. A possible reformulation would focus on the non-instantaneous nature of communications which benefit from the rule. An interesting implication of the operation of the posting rule is that an acceptance is complete once the letter of acceptance is posted; it makes no difference whether the offeror actually receives the letter. A rule of contract law that makes an exception to the general rule that an acceptance is only created when communicated directly to the offeror. However, as has been indicated, the perceived benefit of performance being able to commence as soon as possible under the postal rule, comes from the idea that the rule makes it safe for the offeree to perform as soon as the acceptance is dispatched. By default, an option contract is accepted when the offeror receives the acceptance, not when the offeree mails it. However, the postal rule does put the risk of loss or delay due to the fault of the offeror, on the offeror, and, more importantly, it deals with the revocation issue. Now, when we have multiple fast means of communicating, its benefits seem to be outweighed by its drawbacks, but although we might not regard it as worthwhile to extend, or even maintain the rule with those disadvantages, we should ask whether we can find a means of just preserving its positive impact. In regards to an acceptance, the mode or communication of an acceptance can be broken down into a various components depending on the circumstances. One benefit of the postal rule is that if you are using post as your chosen means of communication in regards to your contract, you can assume acceptance based on the rule. Thus to some degree this can be seen as a strength of the postal rule as it creates certainty for at least one of the parties. Example 2: Day 1: A makes an offer to B.
Example 1: Day 1: A makes an offer to B. The question should ask in this circumstances is can a letter of acceptance be cancelled by actual communication before the letter is delivered? Second, it only applies to letters and telegrams.
Of course, as long as the acceptance was received before the offer expired through the effluxion of time, the result will be much the same: damages will cover the loss of the main contract. It is just a matter of a line needing to be drawn.
based on 119 review