Acceptance sent through email; is the postal rule applicable?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26512/lstr.v11i1.24847Keywords:
Postal rule. Emails. Contract Law. Acceptance.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.
Downloads
References
ADAMS v LINDSELL (1818) 1 B & Ald 681.
AL FARHAN, F. The Impact of the UNCITRAL Model Law on international legal systems Saudi Arabia information technology development from a legal perspective. 2002. Retrieved from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0c48/9cd7e6778cefc04feece56e2b7eca30b9d97.pdf
AL IBRAHIM, M. Ala’eldin, A. & Tahat, H., The Postal Acceptance Rule in the Digital Age. in Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology, Vol. 2, Issue 1, 2007 p. 47.
ANON. Acceptance By Mail: Adams v. Lindsell. in Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 25, Issue 2, 1995, p. 202.
ANON. Contract Law. 5th ed ed. s.l.:Psychology Press, 2006.
ARANHA, M. I. Direito das Telecomunicações: histórico normativo e conceitos fundamentais. Coleford, UK: Laccademia Publishing, 2014.
BALDWIN, R., Cave, M. & Lodge, M. eds., The Oxford Handbook of Regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
BÖCKENFÖRDE, E.-W. Escritos sobre derechos fundamentales. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1993.
BRESSAN v SQUIRES (1974) 2 NSWLR 460.
BRINKIBON Ltd v STAHAG STAHL UND STAHLWARENHANDELSGESELLSCHAFT mbH (1983) 2 AC 34, at 41.
BYRNE & Co v LEON VAN TIEN HOVEN & Co (1880) 5 CPD 344.
CARLSSON, U. The Rise and Fall of NWICO: From a Vision of International Regulation to a Reality of Multilevel Governance. in Nordicom Review, Volume 2, 2003, pp. 31-68.
CHRISTENSEN, S. Formation of Contracts by Email - Is it Just the Same as the Post? in Queensland University Technology Law & Justice Journal, Vol. 1, Issue 1, 2001, p. 2.
CHWEE KIN KEONG and Others v DIGILANDMALL.COM Pte Ltd (2004) 2 SLR 594.
CHWEE KIN KEONG v DIGILANDMALL.COM Pte Ltd (2005) SGCA 2.
CLARK, B. The E-Mail Acceptance Rule. June Proctor, 1997, p. 13.
COOKE v OXLEY (1790) 3 T. R. 653.
COOTE, B. The Instantaneous Transmission of Acceptances. NZULR, vol. 4, 1971, p. 331.
CORBIN, A. & PERILLO, J. Corbin on Contracts. s.l.:rev. ed, 1993.
CROSSLEY v FAITHFUL & GOULD (2004) EWCA Civ 293.
DAULIA v FOUR MILLBANK NOMINEES. (1978) 2 All ER 557.
DICK v UNITED STATES (1949) 82 F. Supp. 326.
DICKIE. When and Where are Electronic Contracts Concluded? Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 1998.
ENTORES Ltd v MILES FAR EAST CORPORATION (1955) 2 QB 327.
ERK, J. Austria: A Federation without Federalism. Publius, Winter, 34(1), 2004, p. 1-20.
ERRINGTON v WOODS (1952) 1 KB 290.
EVANS, D. & MARSHALL, D. The Anglo-American Mailing Rule: Some problems of offers and acceptance in contracts by correspondence. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 15, 1996, p. 553.
FASCIANO, P. Internet Electronic Mail: A Last Bastion for the Mailbox Rule. Hofstra Law Review, vol. 25, 1996, p. 1542.
FURMSTON, M. & TOLHURST, G. Contract Formation ”“ Law and Practice. s.l.:OUP, 2010.
GARDINER, J. The postal rule in contract law and the electronic marvels. Current Commercial Law, vol. 2, 1994.
GARDNER, S. Trashing with Trollope: A Deconstruction of the Postal Rules in Contract. Ox Jo LS, vol. 12, 1992, p. 170.
GIBSON, A. & FRASER, D. Business Law. 2nd ed s.l.: Pearson Education, 2005.
HÄBERLE, P. Die Wesensgehaltgarantie des Art. 19 Abs. 2 Grundgesetz. Karlsruhe: C.F.Müller, 1962.
HARE v NICHOLL (1966) 2 QB 130.
HENTHORN v FRASER (1892) 2 Ch 27.
HILL, S. Flogging a Dead Horse ”“ The postal acceptance rule and e-mail. Journal of Contract Law, Vol. 17, Issue 2, 2001, p. 151.
HO PARK, S. A Comparative Legal Research on Contract Formation via Electronic Means: Time Lag of Contract Creation in the International Sales Transaction. n.d. Retrieved from: https://www.google.com.br/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi70on5iszSAhVFQZAKHRHEANMQFgguMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fktra.ccpshost.com%2Fh_board%2Fdownload.php%3F%26bbs_id%3De12%26page%3D%26type%3D1%26doc_num%3D40%26PHPSESSID%3
HODEL. Communication of Acceptance Between Parties at a Distance. CORN. L. Q., vol. 15, 1929 p. 273.
HOLWELL SECURITIES Ltd v HUGHES (1974) 1 WRL 155.
HOUSEHOLD FIRE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE Co v GRANT (1874) All ER Rep 919.
HOUSEHOLD FIRE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE Co v GRANT (1874) 2 NSWLR 460.
HUDSON. Revocation of postal Acceptance. LQR , vol. 82, 1966, p. 169.
HUMBOLDT, W. On Language: On the Diversity of Human Language Construction and its Influence on the Mental Development of the Human Species. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
IGNATIUS v BELL (1913) 2 F MSLR 115.
IMPERIAL LAND Co of MARSEILLES (Harris' case) (1872) LR 7 Ch 587.
JALIL, A. Clarification of Rules of Acceptance in Making Business Contracts. Journal of Politics and Law, vol. 4, 2011, p. 109.
L J KORBETIS v TRANSGRAIN SHIPPING BV (2005) EWHC (QB) 1345.
LEVY, B. & SPILLER, P. Regulations, Institutions and Commitment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
LUHMANN, N. Law as a Social System. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
MACNEIL, I. Time of acceptance: too many problems for a single rule. Pa LR , vol. 112, 1964, p. 947-979.
McGOVNEY. Irrevocable Offers. HARv. L. REv., vol. 27, 1914, p. 644.
MIK, E. The Effectiveness of Acceptances Communicated by Electronic Means, or ”“Does the Postal Rule Apply to E-mail? JCL, vol. 26, Issue 1, 2009, p. 68-96.
MURRAY, A. Contracting electronically in the shadow of the e-commerce directive. In: The New Legal Framework for E-Commerce in Europe. s.l.: Hart Publishing, 2005, p. 67-92.
NUSSBAUM. Comparative Aspects of Anglo-American Offer-and-Acceptance Doctrine. COL. L. REv., Vol. 36, Issue 6, 1936, p. 920-929.
O’SULLIVAN, J. & HILLIARD, J. The Law of Contract. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
O'SHEA, K. & SKEAHAN, K. Acceptance of Offers by E-Mail How Far Should the Postal Acceptance Rule Extend? Queensland U. Tech. L.J., vol. 13, 1997, p. 247-262.
PAYTON, D. Electronic Contracts. Penglais: DPhil Thesis Aberystwyth University, 2003.
PEEL, E. Treitel The Law of Contract. 13th ed. s.l.: Sweet & Maxwell, 2011.
POGGI, C. Electronic Commerce Legislation: An analysis of European and American Approaches to Contract Formation. Va. Journal of International Law, vol. 41, 2000, p. 224.
POLLOCK, F. Principles of Contracts. 3rd ed. s.l.: Williston, 1906.
POOLE, J. Casebook on Contract Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
POSNER, R. Economic Analysis of Law. 7th ed. New York: Aspen Publishers, 2007.
PRICE, M. E. & NOLL, R. G. A Communications Cornucopia: Markle Foundation Essays on Information Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1998.
RAMBERG, C. The ECommerce Directive and Contract Formation in a Comparative Perspective. European Law Review, vol. 26, 2001, p. 429.
RAWLS, A. Contract formation in an Internet Age. Columbia Science and Technology LR, vol. 10, 2009, p. 200.
RE IMPERIAL LAND Co of MARSEILLES (Harris’ case) (1872) LR 7 Ch 587.
REED, C. EDI - Contractual and Liability Issues. Computer Law & Practice, vol. 6, 1990, p. 36.
REED, C. Advising Clients on EDI Contracts. Computer Law & Practice, vol. 10, 1994, p. 90.
ROSE-ACKERMAN, S. & LINDSETH, P. L. (eds.) Comparative Administrative Law. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2010.
ROUTLEDGE v GRANT (1828) 130 ER 920.
SAMEK, R. A Reassessment of the Present Rule Relating to Postal Acceptance. ALJ, vol. 35, 1961, p. 38.
SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION. Discussion Paper on Formation of Contract, s.l.: Discussion Paper No 154, 2014.
SIMPSON, A. W. B. A History of the Common Law of Contract: The Rise of the Action of Assumpsit. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.
STIMSON. Effective Time of an Acceptance. MINN. L. REv., vol. 23, 1939, p. 776.
STORER v MANCHESTER CITY COUNCIL (1974) 3 All ER 824.
TALLERMAN & Co Pty Ltd v NATHAN’S MERCHANDISE (Victoria) Pty Ltd (1957) 98 CLR 93.
TAYLOR v LAIRD (1856) 1 H & N 266.
TREITEL, G. The Law of Contract. 8th ed. London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1991.
WATNICK, V. The Electronic Formation of Contracts and the Common Law "Mailbox Rule". Baylor Law Review, vol. 56, 2004, p. 175.
WINFIELD, P. Some Aspects of Offer and Acceptance. LQR, Vol. 120, 1939, p. 499.
YAMAGUCHI, M. The Problem of Delay in the Contract Formation Process: A Comparative Study of Contract Law. Cornel International Law Journal, vol. 37, Issue 2, 2004, p. 357-388.
YATES BUILDING Co. Ltd v RJ PULLEYN & SON (York) Ltd (1975) 237 EG 183.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
By submitting this paper to the Law, State and Telecommunications Review,
I hereby declare that I agree to the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
