TUTORIAL 3 (ACCEPTANCE)

2. Siti v Mimi Issue : Whether Siti can revoke the offer made to Mimi when the attempt to make revocation of the offer by phone call failed and the acceptance letter from Mimi was sent before the revocation was made. Law Regarded: In Contract Act 1950, section 4 (2)(a) stated that the communication of an acceptance is complete as against the proposer, when it is put in a course of transmission to him, so as to be out of the power of the acceptor. Section 4 (2)(b) also stated that the communication of an acceptance is complete as against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer. Application: In instantaneous means of communication, a revocation of an offer by the offeror must be made by any communication tools that can deliver information immediately to the offeree and clearly deliver the information without any interruption. In this case, Siti tried to contact Mimi by phone to inform about the revocation but failed. So, there was no revocation made to the offeree. In postal rules also, if the letter of acceptance made by the offeree was sent before the revocation was made by the offeror, so there exist binding contract. In this case, Mimi has sent the acceptance letter to Siti before Siti decided to revokes her offer. So, the acceptance was available and there was binding contract between them. Case Related: In Adams v Lindsell [1818] EWHC KB J59, it involved two parties in the sale of wool. Facts: On 2 September, the defendants wrote to the plaintiffs offering to sell them certain fleeces of wool and requiring an answer in the course of post. The defendants, misdirected the letter so that the plaintiffs did not receive it until 5 September. The plaintiffs posted their acceptance on the same day but it was not received until 9 September. Meanwhile, on 8 September, the defendants, not having received an answer by 7 September as they had expected, sold the wool to someone else. The defendants argued that there could not be a binding contract until the answer was actually received, and until then they were free to sell the wool to another buyer. Held: The acceptance was complete upon posting and there was a valid contract between the parties.

Law Of Contract (LLS 2253)

FUHA DIP 1B

Conclusion: The revocation made by Siti was not available and the letter of acceptance sent by Mimi has made a binding contract. So Mimi can claim the offer.

Law Of Contract (LLS 2253)

FUHA DIP 1B