Evaluating the Evolution of Acceptance in Email Contracts
VerifiedAdded on 2020/05/16
|10
|2382
|162
AI Summary
The concept of acceptance is pivotal in contract law, traditionally governed by the postal rule, where acceptance becomes effective upon dispatch. However, with advancements in technology, communication methods like email have become prevalent, prompting a reevaluation of this rule. The Electronic Transactions Act 1999 and subsequent legislation aim to provide clarity on electronic communications' role in forming contracts. This essay reviews the legal framework's adaptation, analyzing influential cases such as Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 QB 327, which established that instantaneous communication forms do not fall under the postal rule. The paper further examines how modern laws have been interpreted and applied in the context of email acceptance, illustrating a shift from the dispatch rule to receipt-based rules for contract formation. It highlights ongoing legal challenges and discusses potential implications for future contractual agreements made electronically.
Running Head: Corporation law 1
Corporation Law
Corporation Law
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
Corporation Law 2
Part A
Issues related to postal rule are considered as controversial part of the contract law, as it includes
the question related to the time and type of contract formation. There is requirement of remote
communications when parties to the contract are not available for discussing every fact related to
the transaction, otherwise it impose various questions related to the offer and acceptance of the
contract. This rule is introduced for the purpose of solving the struggles and glitches in the
communication of contract and acceptance. This section of the paper discusses the meaning and
history of the postal rule1.
Meaning- offer and acceptance are considered as two important elements of the law of contract
and these two elements consider the presence and processes of the contract between the parties.
Postal rule is considered as immunity to the basic rules of offer and acceptance. Generally, offer
and acceptance rules stated that it is possible to revoke or withdraw the offer any time before it is
accepted by other party. Postal rule is introduced by the party to resolve the problems occurred
between the parties. These particular issues are raised by the different modes of communication.
Usually, post or mail is mentioned as “snail mail" because it take more time to reach to recipient.
This may result in issues in context of both formation and revocation of contract between the
parties. Offerors are not able to known about the acceptance and revocation
In general mode of communication, it is deemed that acceptance is received when it is given to
the offeror by the offeree, even though such acceptance not even read by the offeror. In case of
post, special rule is applied which state that in case of post acceptance occurred when offeree
post the letter.
1 ACL, Agreement, < https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/law/formation-agreement.html#acceptance>,
Accessed on 23rd January 2018.
Part A
Issues related to postal rule are considered as controversial part of the contract law, as it includes
the question related to the time and type of contract formation. There is requirement of remote
communications when parties to the contract are not available for discussing every fact related to
the transaction, otherwise it impose various questions related to the offer and acceptance of the
contract. This rule is introduced for the purpose of solving the struggles and glitches in the
communication of contract and acceptance. This section of the paper discusses the meaning and
history of the postal rule1.
Meaning- offer and acceptance are considered as two important elements of the law of contract
and these two elements consider the presence and processes of the contract between the parties.
Postal rule is considered as immunity to the basic rules of offer and acceptance. Generally, offer
and acceptance rules stated that it is possible to revoke or withdraw the offer any time before it is
accepted by other party. Postal rule is introduced by the party to resolve the problems occurred
between the parties. These particular issues are raised by the different modes of communication.
Usually, post or mail is mentioned as “snail mail" because it take more time to reach to recipient.
This may result in issues in context of both formation and revocation of contract between the
parties. Offerors are not able to known about the acceptance and revocation
In general mode of communication, it is deemed that acceptance is received when it is given to
the offeror by the offeree, even though such acceptance not even read by the offeror. In case of
post, special rule is applied which state that in case of post acceptance occurred when offeree
post the letter.
1 ACL, Agreement, < https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/law/formation-agreement.html#acceptance>,
Accessed on 23rd January 2018.
Corporation Law 3
This can be understood through case law Bressan v Squires, Supreme Court of New South
Wales [1974] 2 NSWLR 4602. In this case, Court held that contract was not formed until
acceptance related to the contract is actually communicated to the offeree, but postal rule was an
exception to this general rule which states that acceptance was communicated when letter was
posted by the offeror3.
Creation of postal rule- this rule was introduced in case law Adam v Lindsell [1818] B & Ald
6814. In this case, court held the contract creation time through mail. In this case, two parties
communicated the facts of the case through the post because of which, it was not possible to
determine the precise time of the acceptance. In this mail send by the parties last for insufficient
days and both the parties does not had knowledge about the communication. This issue creates
number of problems and result in the introduction of postal rule. There was one more case
Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 5in which Court discusses the postal rule.
After discussing the facts of both the cases, it can be said that when situations are of such nature
that it must have been within the inspection of the parties, post can used as means of
communication for the purpose of accepting the offer directed by the offeror, and in this context
acceptance is completed as letter is posted.
In the situation when parties made deal face to face, business parties discuss every fact and
communicate whenever any issue arises. However, in the situation of distant contracting or
indirect business, method of communication which is instantaneous in nature is not available. In
this type of situation parties to the business are not aware of the acceptance or refusal of the
2 Bressan v Squires, Supreme Court of New South Wales [1974] 2 NSWLR 460.
3 ACL, Bressan v Squires, Supreme Court of New South Wales [1974] 2 NSWLR 460, <
https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/cases/bressan.html>, Accessed on 23rd January 2018.
4 Adam v Lindsell [1818] B & Ald 681.
5 Henthorn v Fraser [1892].
This can be understood through case law Bressan v Squires, Supreme Court of New South
Wales [1974] 2 NSWLR 4602. In this case, Court held that contract was not formed until
acceptance related to the contract is actually communicated to the offeree, but postal rule was an
exception to this general rule which states that acceptance was communicated when letter was
posted by the offeror3.
Creation of postal rule- this rule was introduced in case law Adam v Lindsell [1818] B & Ald
6814. In this case, court held the contract creation time through mail. In this case, two parties
communicated the facts of the case through the post because of which, it was not possible to
determine the precise time of the acceptance. In this mail send by the parties last for insufficient
days and both the parties does not had knowledge about the communication. This issue creates
number of problems and result in the introduction of postal rule. There was one more case
Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 5in which Court discusses the postal rule.
After discussing the facts of both the cases, it can be said that when situations are of such nature
that it must have been within the inspection of the parties, post can used as means of
communication for the purpose of accepting the offer directed by the offeror, and in this context
acceptance is completed as letter is posted.
In the situation when parties made deal face to face, business parties discuss every fact and
communicate whenever any issue arises. However, in the situation of distant contracting or
indirect business, method of communication which is instantaneous in nature is not available. In
this type of situation parties to the business are not aware of the acceptance or refusal of the
2 Bressan v Squires, Supreme Court of New South Wales [1974] 2 NSWLR 460.
3 ACL, Bressan v Squires, Supreme Court of New South Wales [1974] 2 NSWLR 460, <
https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/cases/bressan.html>, Accessed on 23rd January 2018.
4 Adam v Lindsell [1818] B & Ald 681.
5 Henthorn v Fraser [1892].
⊘ This is a preview!⊘
Do you want full access?
Subscribe today to unlock all pages.
Trusted by 1+ million students worldwide
Corporation Law 4
contract, this rule of post is used by the Court to resolve the problematic cases related to delay of
communication.
Part B
On the basis of United Nations Commission on International Trade Law's Model Law on
Electronic Commerce (UNCITRAL), the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth) was initiated
on March 15th 2000, and this Act was considered as part of the strategic policy framed by the
government of Australia for the purpose of developing information economic. Government of
Australia established the Electronic Commerce Expert Group for the purpose of reporting the
issues related to ecommerce adopted UNCITRAL for dealing with the issues in B2B business. In
this context, UNCITRAL gives the surety that people get the advantage from the growth of new
information technology (IT)6.
As per the report published by the Attorney General’s E-Commerce Expert Group during the
period of April 1998, the country of the offeror operating the business will regulate the contract
in case acceptance related to the contract arises at the offeror’s place of business, unless agreed
by the parties.
Government created the Electronic Transactions Act 20007 for the purpose of responding to the
report. As per this Act, communication in electronic form paralleled to the individual to whom
information is needed to be given, which consent related to the information must be given
through electronic communication only. Time of receipt in context of electronic communication
6 Electronic Commerce : Building the Legal Framework, Report of the Electronic Commerce Expert Group to the
Attorney General, 31 March 1998.
7 Electronic Transactions Act 2000
contract, this rule of post is used by the Court to resolve the problematic cases related to delay of
communication.
Part B
On the basis of United Nations Commission on International Trade Law's Model Law on
Electronic Commerce (UNCITRAL), the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth) was initiated
on March 15th 2000, and this Act was considered as part of the strategic policy framed by the
government of Australia for the purpose of developing information economic. Government of
Australia established the Electronic Commerce Expert Group for the purpose of reporting the
issues related to ecommerce adopted UNCITRAL for dealing with the issues in B2B business. In
this context, UNCITRAL gives the surety that people get the advantage from the growth of new
information technology (IT)6.
As per the report published by the Attorney General’s E-Commerce Expert Group during the
period of April 1998, the country of the offeror operating the business will regulate the contract
in case acceptance related to the contract arises at the offeror’s place of business, unless agreed
by the parties.
Government created the Electronic Transactions Act 20007 for the purpose of responding to the
report. As per this Act, communication in electronic form paralleled to the individual to whom
information is needed to be given, which consent related to the information must be given
through electronic communication only. Time of receipt in context of electronic communication
6 Electronic Commerce : Building the Legal Framework, Report of the Electronic Commerce Expert Group to the
Attorney General, 31 March 1998.
7 Electronic Transactions Act 2000
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
Corporation Law 5
is considered as time when such communication enters in the information system. This statement
reflected the role of the postal rule application in contracts formed through mail and such mail
are not received by the offeror until offeror operated the system. It must be noted that, provisions
of this Act does not applied in case of telex machines or facsimile.
It can be said that, both the Act provide new way to the postal rule application. Once
communication exists, then it is possible to use the postal rules for solving the issues in distant
business. Various times postal rule have been developed and amended for the purpose of meeting
the demand of present business environment8.
The main purpose of Commonwealth’s Electronic Transaction Act 19999 is to provide facility in
context of electronic transactions, as it also validates the digital or electronic versions of
signatures, and electronic communications in case hard copies are required10.
Part C
In regards of E-mail there are two ways of communication. First way of communication is
through the internet. In this press button is press by the user for the purpose of transmitting the
E-mail to the internet server provider (ISP). With the help of ISP, E-mail travels by way of
8 Sharon Christensen, Formation of Contracts by Email – Is it Just the Same as the Post?, <
https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi-
jcXj2O_YAhUETI8KHeDAAuMQFgg6MAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Flr.law.qut.edu.au%2Farticle%2Fdownload
%2F58%2F57%2F&usg=AOvVaw2cYLw3y4nEzp9LV9mzsi9D>, Accessed on 23rd January 2018.
9 Electronic Transaction Act 1999.
10 Shanti Rubens, The Electronic Transactions Acts in Practice, (2002), < http://www.tved.net.au/index.cfm?
SimpleDisplay=PaperDisplay.cfm&PaperDisplay=http://www.tved.net.au/PublicPapers/
March_2002,_Lawyers_Education_Channel,_The_Electronic_Transactions_Acts_in_Practice.html>, Accessed on
23rd January 2018.
UNCITRAL, UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce Guide to Enactment with 1996, (1996), <
https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/electcom/05-89450_Ebook.pdf>, Accessed on 23rd January 2018.
is considered as time when such communication enters in the information system. This statement
reflected the role of the postal rule application in contracts formed through mail and such mail
are not received by the offeror until offeror operated the system. It must be noted that, provisions
of this Act does not applied in case of telex machines or facsimile.
It can be said that, both the Act provide new way to the postal rule application. Once
communication exists, then it is possible to use the postal rules for solving the issues in distant
business. Various times postal rule have been developed and amended for the purpose of meeting
the demand of present business environment8.
The main purpose of Commonwealth’s Electronic Transaction Act 19999 is to provide facility in
context of electronic transactions, as it also validates the digital or electronic versions of
signatures, and electronic communications in case hard copies are required10.
Part C
In regards of E-mail there are two ways of communication. First way of communication is
through the internet. In this press button is press by the user for the purpose of transmitting the
E-mail to the internet server provider (ISP). With the help of ISP, E-mail travels by way of
8 Sharon Christensen, Formation of Contracts by Email – Is it Just the Same as the Post?, <
https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi-
jcXj2O_YAhUETI8KHeDAAuMQFgg6MAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Flr.law.qut.edu.au%2Farticle%2Fdownload
%2F58%2F57%2F&usg=AOvVaw2cYLw3y4nEzp9LV9mzsi9D>, Accessed on 23rd January 2018.
9 Electronic Transaction Act 1999.
10 Shanti Rubens, The Electronic Transactions Acts in Practice, (2002), < http://www.tved.net.au/index.cfm?
SimpleDisplay=PaperDisplay.cfm&PaperDisplay=http://www.tved.net.au/PublicPapers/
March_2002,_Lawyers_Education_Channel,_The_Electronic_Transactions_Acts_in_Practice.html>, Accessed on
23rd January 2018.
UNCITRAL, UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce Guide to Enactment with 1996, (1996), <
https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/electcom/05-89450_Ebook.pdf>, Accessed on 23rd January 2018.
Corporation Law 6
internet where it may send on across the world until it reaches the receivers ISP. Then the
receiver is able to download the e-mail by logging onto his ISP11.
Second way of communication is the electronic data interchange (EDI). EDI is considered as
system which creates direct link between two parties and because of this email send by one party
immediately reaches the computer of receivers. It must be noted that this direct link between the
parties, makes the communication instantaneous. However, internet takes time to send the
information and cannot be classified as instantaneous.
With the changing business environment Court needs to decide whether scope of postal rule
extend to the modern developments in communication named as instantaneous communication.
With the progression of electronic methods, dispatch and receipt of any message needs to
coincide and any law that dealt with the delay of message between the two parties such as postal
rule considered as useless or outdated law.
There are number of reasons which deal with the discussion in context of applicability of postal
rule and reason of not applying the postal rule on E-mail communication through the internet.
The basis reason behind this is the type of communication. It is already stated above that E-mail
through internet is a non-instantaneous type of communication and stated as the digital
equivalent of the postal system. However, there is exception to this rule that speed of the
communication is equal to the instantaneous communication systems such as telex12.
In case experts concluded that E-mail is an instantaneous method of communication, then in such
case postal rule is not applied to the acceptances transmitted by E-mail. However, argument is
11 Austlii, Hill, Simone W. B --- "Email Contracts - When is the Contract Formed?" [2001] JlLawInfoSci 4; (2001) 12(1)
Journal of Law, Information and Science 46, (2001), <
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JlLawInfoSci/2001/4.html#Heading39>, Accessed on 23rd January 2018.
12 Elizabeth Mcdonald, Dispatching the dispatch rule? The postal rule, e-mail, revocation and implied terms, (2003),
19(2) Web JCLI.
internet where it may send on across the world until it reaches the receivers ISP. Then the
receiver is able to download the e-mail by logging onto his ISP11.
Second way of communication is the electronic data interchange (EDI). EDI is considered as
system which creates direct link between two parties and because of this email send by one party
immediately reaches the computer of receivers. It must be noted that this direct link between the
parties, makes the communication instantaneous. However, internet takes time to send the
information and cannot be classified as instantaneous.
With the changing business environment Court needs to decide whether scope of postal rule
extend to the modern developments in communication named as instantaneous communication.
With the progression of electronic methods, dispatch and receipt of any message needs to
coincide and any law that dealt with the delay of message between the two parties such as postal
rule considered as useless or outdated law.
There are number of reasons which deal with the discussion in context of applicability of postal
rule and reason of not applying the postal rule on E-mail communication through the internet.
The basis reason behind this is the type of communication. It is already stated above that E-mail
through internet is a non-instantaneous type of communication and stated as the digital
equivalent of the postal system. However, there is exception to this rule that speed of the
communication is equal to the instantaneous communication systems such as telex12.
In case experts concluded that E-mail is an instantaneous method of communication, then in such
case postal rule is not applied to the acceptances transmitted by E-mail. However, argument is
11 Austlii, Hill, Simone W. B --- "Email Contracts - When is the Contract Formed?" [2001] JlLawInfoSci 4; (2001) 12(1)
Journal of Law, Information and Science 46, (2001), <
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JlLawInfoSci/2001/4.html#Heading39>, Accessed on 23rd January 2018.
12 Elizabeth Mcdonald, Dispatching the dispatch rule? The postal rule, e-mail, revocation and implied terms, (2003),
19(2) Web JCLI.
⊘ This is a preview!⊘
Do you want full access?
Subscribe today to unlock all pages.
Trusted by 1+ million students worldwide
Corporation Law 7
also stated for the purpose of supporting the application of postal rule in context of E-mail, and
such argument is that offeree in the contract must not be responsible for any fault which might be
occur after the transmission of the communication of acceptance. The idea behind this argument
is that generally offeree lost control on the communication of acceptance and he done all the
possible action for transmitting the acceptance to the offeror. This argument mainly held the
offeror liable for any fault and in this assumption is taken that oferor bear all the risk related to
problems which might be occurred after the transmission of E-mail by the offeree. However, in
lieu of functionality provided by available e-mail systems this argument is not convincing in
nature because it is possible for offeree to check the progress of E-mail sent by offeree and even
offeree can also detect the time when such E-mail is actually opened by the Offeree13.
It can be said that offeree retains the control over the acceptance till the time such acceptance is
read by the offeror. This shift in the balance of power state the majority of policy considerations
which have been justify the application of postal acceptance rule. This fact is also considered that
offeree can make telephone call to make confirmation that the e-mail acceptance message has
been received by the offeror. Therefore, it is possible for offeree to determine whether binding
contract is made and he or she can also state their fats accordingly. The success of commercial
transactions which are generally conducted over the internet shows that contracting parties does
not need a rule of postal acceptance for addressing any delays in communication of E-mail.
In recent decision, court showed their dissent for applying the postal acceptance rule to modern
communication especially in case of instantaneous methods of communication. This ruling is
mainly reflected by Hedigan J of the Supreme Court of Victoria in case law Nunin Holdings v
13 Kathryn Shea & Kylie Skeahen, Acceptance of Offers by E-Mail - How Far Should the Postal Acceptance Rule
Extend?, (1997), https://www.google.co.in/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=16&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjstoKg3O_YAhUJSY8KHUaSDs0QFghu
MA8&url=https%3A%2F%2Flr.law.qut.edu.au%2Farticle%2FviewFile
%2F446%2F433&usg=AOvVaw0yDnTQmqzSi7vCyV1OEOG1>, Accessed on 23rd January 2018.
also stated for the purpose of supporting the application of postal rule in context of E-mail, and
such argument is that offeree in the contract must not be responsible for any fault which might be
occur after the transmission of the communication of acceptance. The idea behind this argument
is that generally offeree lost control on the communication of acceptance and he done all the
possible action for transmitting the acceptance to the offeror. This argument mainly held the
offeror liable for any fault and in this assumption is taken that oferor bear all the risk related to
problems which might be occurred after the transmission of E-mail by the offeree. However, in
lieu of functionality provided by available e-mail systems this argument is not convincing in
nature because it is possible for offeree to check the progress of E-mail sent by offeree and even
offeree can also detect the time when such E-mail is actually opened by the Offeree13.
It can be said that offeree retains the control over the acceptance till the time such acceptance is
read by the offeror. This shift in the balance of power state the majority of policy considerations
which have been justify the application of postal acceptance rule. This fact is also considered that
offeree can make telephone call to make confirmation that the e-mail acceptance message has
been received by the offeror. Therefore, it is possible for offeree to determine whether binding
contract is made and he or she can also state their fats accordingly. The success of commercial
transactions which are generally conducted over the internet shows that contracting parties does
not need a rule of postal acceptance for addressing any delays in communication of E-mail.
In recent decision, court showed their dissent for applying the postal acceptance rule to modern
communication especially in case of instantaneous methods of communication. This ruling is
mainly reflected by Hedigan J of the Supreme Court of Victoria in case law Nunin Holdings v
13 Kathryn Shea & Kylie Skeahen, Acceptance of Offers by E-Mail - How Far Should the Postal Acceptance Rule
Extend?, (1997), https://www.google.co.in/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=16&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjstoKg3O_YAhUJSY8KHUaSDs0QFghu
MA8&url=https%3A%2F%2Flr.law.qut.edu.au%2Farticle%2FviewFile
%2F446%2F433&usg=AOvVaw0yDnTQmqzSi7vCyV1OEOG1>, Accessed on 23rd January 2018.
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
Corporation Law 8
Tullamarine Estates. In this Hedigan J stated, recent authority discuss the more modern methods
of communication, and prefer not to apply the postal rule of acceptance in strict manner, and
consider the intention of parties while applying the general rule of acceptance that is for being
effective acceptance to the contract must be communicated. Therefore, it is concluded by the
Court in context of general rule of acceptance, that acceptance which is sent by the E-mail must
not be effective till the time such acceptance is communicated to the offeror.
The concept of instantaneousness communication can be understood through case law Entores
Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 QB 327 14and Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl und
Stahlwarenhandels GmbH [1983] 2 AC 3415. These cases state that postal rule will not be
applied on E-mails because they are instantaneousness mode of communication.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Website
ACL, Agreement, < https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/law/formation-
agreement.html#acceptance>, Accessed on 23rd January 2018.
14 Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 QB 327.
15 Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandels GmbH [1983] 2 AC 34.
Tullamarine Estates. In this Hedigan J stated, recent authority discuss the more modern methods
of communication, and prefer not to apply the postal rule of acceptance in strict manner, and
consider the intention of parties while applying the general rule of acceptance that is for being
effective acceptance to the contract must be communicated. Therefore, it is concluded by the
Court in context of general rule of acceptance, that acceptance which is sent by the E-mail must
not be effective till the time such acceptance is communicated to the offeror.
The concept of instantaneousness communication can be understood through case law Entores
Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 QB 327 14and Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl und
Stahlwarenhandels GmbH [1983] 2 AC 3415. These cases state that postal rule will not be
applied on E-mails because they are instantaneousness mode of communication.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Website
ACL, Agreement, < https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/law/formation-
agreement.html#acceptance>, Accessed on 23rd January 2018.
14 Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 QB 327.
15 Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandels GmbH [1983] 2 AC 34.
Corporation Law 9
ACL, Bressan v Squires, Supreme Court of New South Wales [1974] 2 NSWLR 460, <
https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/cases/bressan.html>, Accessed on 23rd January 2018.
Adam v Lindsell [1818] B & Ald 681.
Sharon Christensen, Formation of Contracts by Email – Is it Just the Same as the Post?, <
https://www.google.co.in/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi-
jcXj2O_YAhUETI8KHeDAAuMQFgg6MAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Flr.law.qut.edu.au
%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F58%2F57%2F&usg=AOvVaw2cYLw3y4nEzp9LV9mzsi9D>,
Accessed on 23rd January 2018.
Shanti Rubens, The Electronic Transactions Acts in Practice, (2002), <
http://www.tved.net.au/index.cfm?SimpleDisplay=PaperDisplay.cfm&PaperDisplay=http://
www.tved.net.au/PublicPapers/
March_2002,_Lawyers_Education_Channel,_The_Electronic_Transactions_Acts_in_Practice.ht
ml>, Accessed on 23rd January 2018.
UNCITRAL, UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce Guide to Enactment with 1996,
(1996), < https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/electcom/05-89450_Ebook.pdf>, Accessed
on 23rd January 2018.
Austlii, Hill, Simone W. B --- "Email Contracts - When is the Contract Formed?" [2001]
JlLawInfoSci 4; (2001) 12(1) Journal of Law, Information and Science 46, (2001), <
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JlLawInfoSci/2001/4.html#Heading39>, Accessed on 23rd
January 2018.
Kathryn Shea & Kylie Skeahen, Acceptance of Offers by E-Mail - How Far Should the Postal
Acceptance Rule Extend?, (1997), https://www.google.co.in/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=16&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjstoKg3O_YA
hUJSY8KHUaSDs0QFghuMA8&url=https%3A%2F%2Flr.law.qut.edu.au%2Farticle
%2FviewFile%2F446%2F433&usg=AOvVaw0yDnTQmqzSi7vCyV1OEOG1>, Accessed on
23rd January 2018.
Case law
Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 QB 327.
Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandels GmbH [1983] 2 AC 34.
Bressan v Squires, Supreme Court of New South Wales [1974] 2 NSWLR 460.
Henthorn v Fraser [1892].
ACL, Bressan v Squires, Supreme Court of New South Wales [1974] 2 NSWLR 460, <
https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/cases/bressan.html>, Accessed on 23rd January 2018.
Adam v Lindsell [1818] B & Ald 681.
Sharon Christensen, Formation of Contracts by Email – Is it Just the Same as the Post?, <
https://www.google.co.in/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi-
jcXj2O_YAhUETI8KHeDAAuMQFgg6MAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Flr.law.qut.edu.au
%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F58%2F57%2F&usg=AOvVaw2cYLw3y4nEzp9LV9mzsi9D>,
Accessed on 23rd January 2018.
Shanti Rubens, The Electronic Transactions Acts in Practice, (2002), <
http://www.tved.net.au/index.cfm?SimpleDisplay=PaperDisplay.cfm&PaperDisplay=http://
www.tved.net.au/PublicPapers/
March_2002,_Lawyers_Education_Channel,_The_Electronic_Transactions_Acts_in_Practice.ht
ml>, Accessed on 23rd January 2018.
UNCITRAL, UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce Guide to Enactment with 1996,
(1996), < https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/electcom/05-89450_Ebook.pdf>, Accessed
on 23rd January 2018.
Austlii, Hill, Simone W. B --- "Email Contracts - When is the Contract Formed?" [2001]
JlLawInfoSci 4; (2001) 12(1) Journal of Law, Information and Science 46, (2001), <
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JlLawInfoSci/2001/4.html#Heading39>, Accessed on 23rd
January 2018.
Kathryn Shea & Kylie Skeahen, Acceptance of Offers by E-Mail - How Far Should the Postal
Acceptance Rule Extend?, (1997), https://www.google.co.in/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=16&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjstoKg3O_YA
hUJSY8KHUaSDs0QFghuMA8&url=https%3A%2F%2Flr.law.qut.edu.au%2Farticle
%2FviewFile%2F446%2F433&usg=AOvVaw0yDnTQmqzSi7vCyV1OEOG1>, Accessed on
23rd January 2018.
Case law
Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 QB 327.
Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandels GmbH [1983] 2 AC 34.
Bressan v Squires, Supreme Court of New South Wales [1974] 2 NSWLR 460.
Henthorn v Fraser [1892].
⊘ This is a preview!⊘
Do you want full access?
Subscribe today to unlock all pages.
Trusted by 1+ million students worldwide
Corporation Law 10
Report
Electronic Commerce : Building the Legal Framework, Report of the Electronic Commerce
Expert Group to the Attorney General, 31 March 1998.
Statutes
Electronic Transactions Act 2000
Electronic Transaction Act 1999.
Journal
Elizabeth Mcdonald, Dispatching the dispatch rule? The postal rule, e-mail, revocation and
implied terms, (2003), 19(2) Web JCLI.
Report
Electronic Commerce : Building the Legal Framework, Report of the Electronic Commerce
Expert Group to the Attorney General, 31 March 1998.
Statutes
Electronic Transactions Act 2000
Electronic Transaction Act 1999.
Journal
Elizabeth Mcdonald, Dispatching the dispatch rule? The postal rule, e-mail, revocation and
implied terms, (2003), 19(2) Web JCLI.
1 out of 10
Related Documents
Your All-in-One AI-Powered Toolkit for Academic Success.
+13062052269
info@desklib.com
Available 24*7 on WhatsApp / Email
![[object Object]](/_next/static/media/star-bottom.7253800d.svg)
Unlock your academic potential
Copyright © 2020–2025 A2Z Services. All Rights Reserved. Developed and managed by ZUCOL.