Commercial Law: Bibek's Order Cancellation and Electronic Contracts

This case study analyzes a commercial law scenario involving Bibek's attempt to cancel an order for computers and a printer placed with a local electronics shop. The analysis focuses on whether the order can be cancelled based on the timing of the offer, acceptance, and communication, particularly in the context of electronic transactions. The study examines the application of the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth), specifically sections 8, 14, and 14A, to determine when an electronic communication is dispatched and received. The case considers whether a contract was formed based on whether the email accepting the offer has been retrieved by Bibek, and references the case of Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tien Hoven & Co. The conclusion addresses the legal outcomes of the situation, clarifying when the order can or cannot be cancelled based on the provisions of the law of contract and the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth).

Running head: COMMERCIAL LAW
Commercial Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1COMMERCIAL LAW
Issue
Whether the order placed by Bibek can be cancelled. Whether the order placed can be
cancelled when a mail has been received by Bibek from the electronics shop, but has not been
retrieved.
Rule
As per the provisions contained in s 8 of the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth), a
transaction would not be rendered to be invalid only because of its institution being effected by
the application of the method of electronic communication.
As per the provisions contained in s 14 of the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth), the
electronic communication would be said to have been dispatched when the communication has
left the system of information which rendered it to go beyond the control of originated that is the
party who sent it. In case a communication has failed to leave the system being in the control of
originator, the time for dispatch will be the time when the person to whom the communication
has been sent has received the same.
As per the provisions contained in s 14A of the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth),
the time as to when the receipt of a electronic communication is said to have been effected is the
point of time when the communication has becomes retrievable by the person to whom it has
been sent.
According to the law of contract, a valid contract creating rights in obligations for the
parties involved can be created by initiating a proposal which has when accepted. The revocation
of an offer is required to be made prior to the acceptance of the same. Once the offer has been

2COMMERCIAL LAW
accepted the same conclude a valid contract and cannot be revoked. This can be illustrated with
the case of Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tien Hoven & Co [1880] 5 CPD 344.
Application
In the instant situation, an offer has been made by Bibek by way of sending an email to a
local electronics shop requesting them to send three computers and a printer amounting to $9000.
In return of such an email no reply has been received by Bibek yet. This can be treated as an
offer made by Bibek which has not been accepted by the electronics shop. However the
communication of the offer is said to have been affected when it has left the system of Bibek.
However, as no reply has been received, or neither is retrievable no contract has been formed and
the offer can be revoked and the order can be cancelled by sending an email to that effect.
Again, in case Bibek has already received a mail accepting the offer but has failed to
retrieve the same, it would amount to a valid institution of a contract as a communication of an
acceptance is said to be valid when the same has become retrievable by the person to whom it
has been sent as can be conceived from the provisions contained in s 14A of the Electronic
Transactions Act 1999 (Cth).
Conclusion
The order placed by Bibek can be cancelled. The order placed cannot be cancelled when
a mail has been received by Bibek from the electronics shop, but has not been retrieved.

3COMMERCIAL LAW
Reference List
Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tien Hoven & Co [1880] 5 CPD 344
The Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth)