ACCEPTANCE
Communication
of Acceptance
Entorres v Miles Far East [1955] 2 QB 327 Court of Appeal
The claimant sent a telex message from England offering to purchase 100 tons of Cathodes from the defendants in Holland. The defendant sent back a telex from Holland to the London office accepting that offer. The question for the court was at what point the contract came into existence. If the acceptance was effective from the time the telex was sent the contract was made in Holland and Dutch law would apply. If the acceptance took place when the telex was received in London then the contract would be governed by English law.
Held:
To amount to an effective acceptance the acceptance needed to be communicated to the offeree. Therefore the contract was made in England.
The claimant sent a telex message from England offering to purchase 100 tons of Cathodes from the defendants in Holland. The defendant sent back a telex from Holland to the London office accepting that offer. The question for the court was at what point the contract came into existence. If the acceptance was effective from the time the telex was sent the contract was made in Holland and Dutch law would apply. If the acceptance took place when the telex was received in London then the contract would be governed by English law.
Held:
To amount to an effective acceptance the acceptance needed to be communicated to the offeree. Therefore the contract was made in England.
Silence will not generally amount to an acceptance:
Felthouse
v Bindley [1862] EWHC CP J35 Court of Common
Pleas
A nephew discussed buying a horse from his uncle. He offered to purchase the horse and said if I don't hear from you by the weekend I will consider him mine. The horse was then sold by mistake at auction. The auctioneer had been asked not to sell the horse but had forgotten. The uncle commenced proceedings against the auctioneer for conversion. The action depended upon whether a valid contract existed between the nephew and the uncle.
Held:
There was no contract. You cannot have silence as acceptance.
A nephew discussed buying a horse from his uncle. He offered to purchase the horse and said if I don't hear from you by the weekend I will consider him mine. The horse was then sold by mistake at auction. The auctioneer had been asked not to sell the horse but had forgotten. The uncle commenced proceedings against the auctioneer for conversion. The action depended upon whether a valid contract existed between the nephew and the uncle.
Held:
There was no contract. You cannot have silence as acceptance.
Acceptance can be through conduct:
Brogden
v Metropolitan Railway
(1877) 2 App. Cas. 666
The claimants were the suppliers of coal to the defendant railway company. They had been dealing for some years on an informal basis with no written contract. The parties agreed that it would be wise to have a formal contract written. The defendant drew up a draft contract and sent it to the claimant. The claimant made some minor amendments and filled in some blanks and sent it back to the defendant. The defendant then simply filed the document and never communicated their acceptance to the contract. Throughout this period the claimants continued to supply the coal. Subsequently a dispute arose and it was questioned whether in fact the written agreement was valid.
Held:
The written contract was valid despite no communication of the acceptance. The acceptance took place by performing the contract without any objection as to the terms.
The claimants were the suppliers of coal to the defendant railway company. They had been dealing for some years on an informal basis with no written contract. The parties agreed that it would be wise to have a formal contract written. The defendant drew up a draft contract and sent it to the claimant. The claimant made some minor amendments and filled in some blanks and sent it back to the defendant. The defendant then simply filed the document and never communicated their acceptance to the contract. Throughout this period the claimants continued to supply the coal. Subsequently a dispute arose and it was questioned whether in fact the written agreement was valid.
Held:
The written contract was valid despite no communication of the acceptance. The acceptance took place by performing the contract without any objection as to the terms.
Butler Machine Tool v Ex-Cell-O Corporation [1979]
1 WLR 401 Court of Appeal
Ex-Cell-O wished to purchase a machine from Butler. Butler sent out a quotation of £75,535 along with a copy of their standard terms of sale. The terms included a price variation clause and a term that the seller's terms would prevail over any terms submitted by a purchaser. The machine would be delivered in 10 months. Ex-Cell-O put in an order for the machine at the stated price and sent a set of their terms which did not include the price variation clause. The order contained an acknowledgement slip which required a signature by Butler and was to be returned to Ex-Cell-O. This slip stated that the contract would be subject to the terms stated overleaf. Butler duly signed the slip and returned it. The machines were then delivered and Butler sought to enforce the price variation clause and demanded an extra £2,893. Ex-Cell-O refused to pay.
Held:
The offer to sell the machine on terms provided by Butler was destroyed by the counter offer made by Ex-Cell-O. Therefore the price variation clause was not part of the contract. The contract was concluded on Ex-Cell-O's terms since Butler signed the acknowledgement slip accepting those terms. Where there is a battle of the forms whereby each party submits their own terms the last shot rule applies whereby a contract is concluded on the terms submitted by the party who is the last to communicate those terms before performance of the contract commences.
Ex-Cell-O wished to purchase a machine from Butler. Butler sent out a quotation of £75,535 along with a copy of their standard terms of sale. The terms included a price variation clause and a term that the seller's terms would prevail over any terms submitted by a purchaser. The machine would be delivered in 10 months. Ex-Cell-O put in an order for the machine at the stated price and sent a set of their terms which did not include the price variation clause. The order contained an acknowledgement slip which required a signature by Butler and was to be returned to Ex-Cell-O. This slip stated that the contract would be subject to the terms stated overleaf. Butler duly signed the slip and returned it. The machines were then delivered and Butler sought to enforce the price variation clause and demanded an extra £2,893. Ex-Cell-O refused to pay.
Held:
The offer to sell the machine on terms provided by Butler was destroyed by the counter offer made by Ex-Cell-O. Therefore the price variation clause was not part of the contract. The contract was concluded on Ex-Cell-O's terms since Butler signed the acknowledgement slip accepting those terms. Where there is a battle of the forms whereby each party submits their own terms the last shot rule applies whereby a contract is concluded on the terms submitted by the party who is the last to communicate those terms before performance of the contract commences.
