To begin with, it figures out if a contract was made at all, in the absence of a received acceptance. Next, it decides when the agreement was made, namely at the time the acceptance is posted. This is important in many cases, for instance in meeting due dates, in choosing among contending acceptances, in choosing whether an old or another expense rate ought to apply to a deal, etc. At last, it fixed time beyond which the offer couldn't be revoked. The postal rule has several more benefits - one of which is that the individual accepting the contract will be able to reap the immediate benefits of acceptance, even if there are unexpected delays in the contract’s delivery.
Offer and acceptance analysis is a traditional approach in contract law used to determine whether an agreement exists between two parties. An offer is an indication by one person to another of their willingness to contract on certain terms without further negotiations. A contract is then formed if there is express or implied agreement. A contract is said to come into existence when acceptance of an offer has been communicated to the offeror by the offeree. In modern contract law, a formation doctrine that depends more directly on the timing and possibility of performance preparations, promise reliance, and speculation comports better both with morality and with efficiency.
A contract is an agreement between two or more parties to create legal obligations which are enforceable by law. The contracting parties must have the same understanding of the terms before a contract is formed. The four essential elements of a contract are offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relations. Offer is a statement by one party to a contract that he or she proposes to do something. An offer may be communicated in writing, orally or by conduct.
It requires of the promisor to honour a unilateral promise he made to the promisee who is not required to pay consideration from in certain circumstances. It was accepted as part of Australian contract law in Walton’s Stores Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387. Brennan J listed the essential elements of an action for promissory estoppel as below; i. that the plaintiff implied or expected existence of a legal relationship whereby the promisor will not go back on his promise ii. such assumption was
A contract is a legally binding agreement. It is not always easy to establish whether the basic requirements of a contract, such as offer and acceptance, the necessity or otherwise of consideration, the capacity of the parties, the reality of their consent, and so on, exist. Dicey and Morris lay down a simple rule, that ‘the formation of a contract is governed by that law which would be the proper law of the contract if the contract was validly concluded’. In Malaysia, the essential elements of a contract are Offer, Acceptance, Intention to create legal relations, and Consideration. 1 Offer The first element in a valid contract would be offer.
v. Miles Far East Corporation (1955) 2 Q.B.D. 327, held that a contract made by telephone is complete only where the acceptance is heard by the proposer because generally an acceptance must be notified to the proposer to make a binding contract and the contract emerges at the place where the acceptance is received and not at the place where it is spoken into the telephone. In so deciding, the court of Appeal did not apply the rule obtaining in respect of contracts by correspondence or telegrams, namely, that acceptance is complete as soon as a letter of acceptance is put into the post box or a telegram is handed in for dispatch, and the place of acceptance is also the place where the contract is
1a) offer An offer is a definite and clear promise to be bound on specific term(s), when accepted, the contract is binding on both the offeror and the offeree. An offer can be made to a specific person, a group or the whole world. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company  (influenza and use of smokeball) In this case, peter recent lost his dog and posted an advertisement. With this manner, it is part of Invitation to treat. But an advertisement is usually an offer because of clear intention with reward of $2000 for any person who could return the dog to him.
The third arbitrator replied that, in order to proceed in that period, the parties should consider the fees which were likely to be incurred, including a non-refundable commitment fee. The plaintiffs ' solicitors submitted a revised proposal which the arbitrators found satisfactory. However, they asked for an assurance that the defendants ' solicitors had no objection to make with regards to the payments proposed. The defendants ' solicitors argued that the two arbitrators had no entitlement to demand advance fees. Therefore, they sought an order removing those arbitrators on the ground of misconduct on the account of their making and persisting in certain requirements in respect of fees to which they were not entitled.
At the point of law, this case is become an unilateral offer because a suggestion that the offer was too vague to form the basis for a binding agreement, in that it had no time limit, was rejected by the court, which felt that the ball must have been intended to protect its user during the two week prescribed period of use. Secondly, the court viewed the deposit of the £1000 as evidence of an intention to pay any claims and therefore rejected the notion that the offer was simply an advertising gimmick. Thirdly, the proposal that it is impossible to make an offer to the world at large was also rejected; the contract that arises from such an offer will be unilateral. Forth, the use of the product was deemed sufficient consideration. At last, communication of acceptance, in unilateral contract of this kind, may be made by conduct.
Downton Defendant told the plaintiff, as a practical joke, that her husband had asked him to tell her that he was lying with both legs broken following a serious accident. This statement was false. The plaintiff believed the statement and suffered nervous shock and a number of physical consequences. In the present case it is an admitted fact that neither the appellants nor either of the companies whose undertaking is now vested in them ever acquired from the respondent or his predecessors in title any part of their legal right to or interest in the water in their land. In the year 1892 the respondent began to sink a shaft on his land.