Legal Advice for Robert in Business Law

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

BUSINESS LAW1
Question 1
Issue
To advise Robert regarding Cameron repeated acceptance and rejection of his offer
pertaining to the sale of 50 metric tons of wheat at $250 per metric tonne.
Rule
Offer and acceptance being the most significant element of a valid and binding
contract it must be communicated in writing, orally or by way of implication. The
communication of an offer is deemed to be complete when and the offeree comes to know
about it; while, an acceptance of an offer is completed when it reaches the offeror as per the
general rule of communication of acceptance. However, the postal rule holds certain other
view about the completion of the communication of an acceptance. As per the postal rule of
communication of acceptance depends or rather varies for different situation and also from an
offeror to the offeree (Hough and Kuhnel-Fitchen 2014.). In case of offeror, communication
of acceptance is held to be complete even when the post is still in transmission with the postal
authority. As soon as the offeree posts the letter, the communication of acceptance from the
offeror's side is said to be completed. In case of offeree, communication of acceptance is
constituted as complete as soon as the offeror gets to know it.
The purpose of considering the importance of communication of offer and acceptance
is to provide protection to the offeror and the offered who may otherwise land up in situations
where they would be made bound to fulfil contracts without their knowledge that their offer
has been accepted or rejected as held in Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27. Instantaneous
method of acceptance like verbal communication or introduction through emails gives a
benefits that the communication of offer as well as acceptance is done instantaneous and the
offeror and the offeree gets the idea of each other’s intention to the agreement. However in
case of non-instantaneous method of acceptance like communication through post, it is

BUSINESS LAW2
considered that the offeree has accepted the offer as soon as he post his acceptance letter even
though it is still in transmission with the postal authority (Knapp, Crystal and Prince 2019).
As argued in Bressan v Squires [1974] 2 NSWLR 46, the postal rule is an exception
to the general rule where both the offer and the acceptance or either of them is sent by post.
The postal rule makes sure that the acceptance of the offer is complete as soon as it is posted
and not when it is received by the offeror. Therefore it implies that the acceptance by the
offeree becomes valid even before his letter of acceptance reaches the offeror. Such
acceptance is considered to be valid even when the letter of acceptance does not reach the
offeror ever. However postal rule does not work when the acceptance has been made by
instantaneous method of communication like email for telephonic conversation. It is
important to comply with the rules of communication of acceptance in cases where dispute
arises regarding the validity of an agreement and whether the parties to the agreement shall
be bound by it. Application
In the given case Robert had placed the initial offer of buying 50 metric tons of wheat
at $250 per metric tonne to Cameron by way of post on September 5 which reached Cameron
on September 7. Cameron posted reply on the same day saying that he accepts Robert’s offer;
however he made a query regarding the inclusion of the delivery price of the terms of wheat
to his warehouse. On the next day, that is on September 8 Robert received Cameron’s
acceptance letter and quickly checked the price of the wheat which was said to fall and
therefore Robert agreed to the $250 e along with delivery charges by way of an email. Email
being and instantaneous method of communication reached Cameron immediately which he
happily accepted Robert’s offer. However on finding the fact that the price of wheat would be
going down Cameron sent an email around midday on September 8, refused to accept
Robert’s offer.

BUSINESS LAW3
Here it can be clearly seen that the offer made by Robert through post was lawfully
accepted by Cameron also by way of post, although it included a query. Both the offer and
the initial acceptance was made by way of non-instantaneous mode of communication, even
though Cameron’s acceptance would not be considered as complete for it was coupled with a
query. On a later stage Robert answered Cameron’s query by way of an email to which
Cameron reverted back by way of posting a letter of acceptance. Here Robert choose the
instantaneous way to answer Cameron’s query which reached him immediately as sent.
While Cameron chose to make use of the non-instantaneous way of communication and
posted his final letter of acceptance immediately after receiving Robert’s email. Therefore
Cameron’s last acceptance of Robert’s offer by way of post would be considered to be final
and complete even though it is in transmission, therefore cancelling out his latest email to
Robert where he refused to accept wheat from him. By way of the general rule of acceptance,
the offeree cannot revoke his own acceptance of an offer once he has accepted it. In addition
the postal rule of communication of acceptance clearly states that acceptance of an offer is
completed as soon as the offeree posts the letter of acceptance and such letter is in
transmission and has not reached the offeror yet
Conclusion
Therefore, subject to the fulfilment of other essential elements of a valid contract, an
agreement has been constituted between Robert and Cameron for they fulfilled all the
essential elements of a valid offer and acceptance to form an agreement. Robert is advised to
bring in in legal suits for breach of contract against Cameron for refusing to you execute his
share of the agreement.
Question 2
Issue