Acceptance of the offer Communication + unconditional accept the terms of offer Unconditional accept The acceptance must be an agreement

to all terms of the offer. Intention Objective: Offeree not intend to accept but his words act did show acceptance objectivel!" valid" Day Morris Associates v Voyce #ubjective: Offeree $now ought to $now the offer is given in wrong information and accept" %ot valid" Hartog v Colin & Shields Contrast: if offeror has no evidence show offeree $now or ought to be $now the validit! of offer and offeree accept then ctt is valid" Centrovincial Estates v MIAC Agree to all term in offer Offeree add new terms to the offer given" %.valid acceptance &counter" offer'" Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co pany Offeree tr! to accept original offer after C"O" C"O $ill off original offers( so cannot be accepted" Hyde v !rench Contrast: Offeree as$ for more information" %ot C"O( offer still open for acceptance" Stevenson" #ac$%es & Co v Mc&ean Offeree unconditional accept the offer but add a letter he cannot performed such condition in the offer !et" )alid acceptance" he can unconditionall! accept even though he cannot perform according to ctt( the covering letter is collateral &separate' ctt to the original ctt"'he Society o( &loyd)s v 'winn That mean if the collateral offer is rejected( the acceptance of original offer still binding

Offeror and offeree will attempt to contract on &differing' standard forms" *battle of the forms+ with offers result of counter"offers passing to and fro" last shot is the winner ,eceipt as last shot as counter offer" British Road Service &td v Arth%r Cr%tchley & Co &td

Communication of the acceptance Acceptance is not effective until it is communicated to the offeror" -owell v &ee

&ord Denning in Entores v Miles 4ar Corp + If oral acceptance is -ast shot must be clear: *,efer East drowned out b! overfl!ing aircraft( to the price of the goods+ did then it has to be repeated until offeror not form clear last shot offer hear it( if not( there is no ctt so no valid+ B%tler Machine 'ool v E,+Cell+o Offeree silence respond to offer" %. o -ro(essor 'reitel: i( )alid acceptance" Offeror cannot stated that have to imposed silence as acceptance upon *according their terms offeree" 4eltho%se v Bindley and condition+ instead o( only re(er to s%./ect atter 0the price1" then it Contrast: Re Selectmove Ltd " ma! turn into counter the Co%rt o( Appeal recogni5ed" offer in a very strong obiter comment" that i( an offeree agrees to silence being a %o terms and condition prevail means of acceptance then at all &different failure to communicate with approach'" .vidence show the offeror is e/uivalent to that neither part! agree to acceptance. contract on other+s term" 2HS- Inc3 v AB Electronic &td .0ception: #ilent as acceptance Offeree no respond offer to terminate ctt and afterward he stop follow ctt obligation" Vitol SA v 6orel( &td Unilateral offer( offeree no repond of acceptance and perform" Carlill v Car.olic S o7e Ball Co pany Offeree no respond to the offer and perform according offer" Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co pany Acceptance b! post" valid acceptance once it is posted" Ada s v &indsell

1ostal ,ule Acceptance )alid acceptance once it is posted" Ada s v &indsell )alid even when it never arrived" Ho%sehold 4ire Ins%rance v 2rant ,e/uirements: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. must be properl! posted must not misaddress must be reasonable must not ousted b! offeror method of 1, applied instantaneous method not included 8. 1, not appl! when will produce inconvenient and absurdit! ,ule 2: %st .e properly posted

,ule 5:

%st not o%sted .y o((eror

:.

communications with businesses rather than with private individ%als ;essage recorded in answering phone ma! considered as valid acceptance if the phone act as machiner! agent <even though offeror did not listen it=+ 'hornton v Shoe &ane -ar7ing

Offeror wrote must informed him the acceptance" %o 1," Holwell Sec%rities v H%ghes ,ule 6: ethod o( -R applied

Telegram" Br%ner v Moore Ordinar! 1ost" Ada ,ule 7: instantaneo%s incl%ded v &indsell ethod not .0ception: 9usiness >our Issue Brin7i.on &td v Stahag Stahl: %o universal rule can cover all cases &when the effective acceptance' ";ust refer to intention of parties within business practice Offeree send withdrawal within business hour <6.4:pm"7.::pm= but offeror failed to read" )alid at the time of received even though not read until ne0t morning" 'he Bri nes In this point( arguabl! applied the same to acceptance and it will mean the acceptance occur within time of business even though not to be listened until ne0t da!

&ord Denning in Entores v Miles 4ar ;ethod of Communication East Corp " If oral acceptance is drowned out b! overfl!ing aircraft( then it has to be repeated until offeror Offer did not told about the method( offeree use a not less advantageous hear it( if not( there is no ctt method to accept" )alid A" Manchester Diocesan Co%ncil (or ,ule 8: -R not applied when prod%ce Ed%cation v Co ercial and 2eneral inconvenient and a.s%rdity Invest ent Holwell Sec%rities v H%ghes %ote: If postal rule not applied( the ordinar! post still can be used 9ut it is onl! will be considered as valid acceptance when the post reach the offeror Revocation i( applied -R Two letters: one acceptance and one revocation arrived together" %o acceptance"1ersuasive: D%n ore v Ale,ander 'reitel: *the issue is whether the offeror would be unjustl! prejudiced b! allowing the offeree to rel! on the subse/uent revocation+. Offeree use another method which specified b! offeror" %o A but C"O" Eliason v Henshaw 0pers%asive1 ;odern method of acceptance Offeree send acceptance to the offeror b! fa0 telephone tele0" A at the point of received" 1, not applied" Entores v Miles 4ar East Corp If offeree notice line goes dead( then he has to repeat until offeror accept If A is clear from offeree( then if offeror did not hear it( then he has to as$ offeree to repeat If offeror has no fault while offeree thought message is conve!ed( then no ctt

Offeree pass the post to postman" %ot postal rule" postman was not an agent of the 1ost Office" &ondon and 6orthern Ban7" e, p3 #ones" Re ,ule 3: %st not isaddress

Offeror misaddress and offeree use the address to accept"1, applied Offeree misaddress provided offeror did not do the mista$e" %ot 1, + &# 8or.etis v 'ransgrain Shipping BV ,ule 4: %st .e within conte plation

Offeree send outside the business hour <?22.4:pm=" Considered acceptance at the ne0t wor$ing da!" Mondial Shipping and Chartering BV v Astarte Shipping &td Offeree send email acceptance at 7pm( offeror did not read" Considered acceptance according to circumstances" present case has evidence so that the transaction can finish on that evening so valid even though not read" 'ho as v B-E Solicitors ?a (ir @ 0o.iter1

Offeree lived apart with offeror and use post" 1, applied" according to the ordinar! usages of man$ind( when parties lived in different towns is within contemplation" Henthorn v 4raser Offeree repl! b! post to the instantaneous mode of offer" %o 1," offer b! telegram is presumptive evidence that a prompt repl! is e0pected" 9%enerd%aine v Cole

If message not been received( machine will inform sender &offeree+s fault' or if acceptance of fa0 message not clear &offeror+s fault'" #SC :esta(oni 264- v Ronly Holding &td Obiter dictum in The Brimnes 0;<=>1 to the e((ect that a letter that has been delivered will normall! be deemed to have been opened within a reasonable time as this applies to