Acceptance

Acceptance

1. Courts will apply an objective test to determine whether there is valid acceptance

2. Methods of Acceptance

   • 1) Acceptance by Conduct
     • In a unilateral contract, acceptance always via conduct.
     • Bilateral contract may be accepted by conduct
       • Brogden v Metropolitan Railway = There has to be some external manifestation of acceptance
   • Acceptance By Silence
     • Felthouse v Bindley = Acceptance must be communicated, silence doesn't constitute acceptance
       • Taylor v Allen = Acceptance inferred from conduct (silence) can only have effect if the offeree performed the act in question with the intention of accepting the offer.
       • Re Selectmove = Generally silence doesn't amount to consent, may be different where offeree possess authority to contract
   • Acceptance by Post
     • Adam v Lindsell = Posted acceptance complete on postal
     • Adam v Lindsell = Acceptance will still apply when letter lost in post
     • Household Fire Insurance Co v Grant = Acceptance still apply even if letter hasn't arrived
     • Henthorn v Fraser = Postal acceptance applied only where reasonable for offeree to use as a method of communication
   • Powell v Lee = Acceptance of an offer must be communicated to offeror by offeree himself or authorized agent
   • Electronic Communication
     • Entores v Miles Far East Corp = Acceptance must be heard in order to be effective. Acceptance takes place where & when received
     • Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl = Acceptance should take effect at the time aceptor could reasonably have expected it to be read
     • The Pamela = Where message reaches offeror outside business hours, acceptances takes place on next working day
     • Eastern Navigator = Email notice effective when it has been sent though recipient chose to ignore it thinking it was junk
     • Thomas v BPE Solicitors = Acceptance email effective when received
   • Holwell Securities v Hughes = Offerer may specify certain method of acceptance
   • Williams v Cawardine = No acceptance where there was no knowledge of the of offer

3. Tinn v Hoffman = No contract where there are only cross-offers

   • (offer made to another in ignorance that the offeree has made the same offer to the offeror)