Postal Rule: Adam v Lindsell (1818) - A Contract Despite Delay - Essay Sample

Introduction

The postal rule can be used to determine whether there was a contract or not in this case. According to postal rule, a contract takes effect on the date the offeree post the letter. This applies even in the circumstances such as letter delay or even when the letter never arrived. A good example is the case of Adams v Lindsell (1818). In this case, Lindsell had offered to sell an item to Adam on 2nd September and sent a letter, but due to postal delay, Adam received the letter on 5th and immediately posted an acceptance letter. On 8th, Lindsell sold the item to another buyer, assuming that Lindsell was not interested. However, he received an acceptance letter form Lensell on the 9th though he had already sold the item on the 8th. When Adam sued Lindsell of contract breach, the court ruling was that there was a contract between Adam and Lindsell.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Regarding this ruling, there is enough evidence that there was a contract between Michael and David. Though David received the letter of acceptance on 17th April, which was beyond the deadline he had set for a reply, Michael had posted the letter on 2nd April. About postal law, a contract takes effect immediately after the offeree post a letter of acceptance. In this case, the deal was then active on the date Michael posted the letter. Besides, a contract takes place after the message is displayed, whether it delays or even gets lost. As such, since Michael has posted another letter earlier, which never reached to David, this is when the contract became effective.

The postal law can also be used to determine whether the revocation that was made by David on the 10th was valid according to the law. According to the postal law, this law can only be applied to communication made by telegram or postal. As such, this law does not recognize the communication made by the email. Email notifications are taken as an advertisement, and hence they can only be effective when the receiving end acknowledges receiving the information. In this case, Michael will be considered not having received David's revocation notification by the time he agreed on the offer. As such, the revocation that was done by David via email will be considered invalid.

The aspect of whether an agreement is intended to be recognized as a legal contract is also another aspect that can be used to determine whether a contact can be identified as legal. The element of intention is defined as whether an agreement is enforceable as not all deals are a legal contract. In this case, the presumption made by the court of law is whether a transaction is social or domestic. In most cases, a universal agreement will not be intended to be a legal contract. A good example comes from a case from Balfour v Balfour (1919). This was a case of Mr. and Mrs. Balfour, who had separated since Mrs. Balfour was in England for treatment. During this time, Mr. Balfour agreed to be sending his wife an allowance of $30 until they rejoin. However, before Mrs. Balfour returns to his husband, Mr. Balfour, he decided that they should remain separated. Mr. Balfour ceased sending Mrs. Balfour the allowance, and hence she sues him on breach of contract. However, the court ruled that there was no legal contract citing domestic or social mutual agreements does not qualify as an enforceable contract.

When offeree sue the offeror due to contract breach, the offeror can defend himself by showing that there was no intention to make this agreement a legal contract. In this case, David can defend himself by showing that Michael is a family friend and the fact that he had offered to sell the equipment at $ 5000, to Michael even though Peter was willing to purchase them at a higher price. This shows that David was favoring Michael due to their social relationship. As such, this can be used as an evidence to show that the agreement was never intended to be a legal contract.

Application

Michael can sue David for breaching a contract that had already been enforced. This is because, according to postal law, an agreement is valid immediately, an acceptance letter is posted. Michael can also deny that David had revoked the deal before he accepted it because using postal law, a revocation done by email can only be effective on the date that the offeree receives it, which can only be confirmed by his/her reply. As such, Michael can claim not having received the revocation message that David had to send on an email.

However, David can use the aspect of intention as a defense if Michael decides to sue him. By showing that he had given Michael a chance to but those items despite being offered a higher price by Peter and also that he is his family friend, the court can determine the agreement as mutual social agreement. In this case, the contract will be considered as not regally forcible.

Conclusion

Michael has all the right to sue David for a breach of contract. However, David also has evidence to show that there was no initial intention to make this agreement a legal contract. My advice will hence be that Michael should not consider suing David as the court might end up believing that there was no intention to make it legal if David uses this defense.

Issue

Whether a consumer can be compensated even when a document showing that a business does not offer warrant was provided during purchase

Law Section 3

As defined by ACL, a consumer is a person who buys a good only to consume not to resale. When the Items were delivered to Jeremy, he was provided with a document that all the goods that were sold to him had no guarantee. However, according to (ACL s 54), a consumer should be given a warranty for the product being operational, durable, and with the expected standard. As it may, this was not ensured in the case of Jeremy. For example, the Microwave was of poor quality and non-durable as it blew after being used for only five minutes.

The other section of the consumer protection that has been breached is (ACL ss 18) that prohibits any conduct of misleading conduct. In the case study, One Stop Shop shows some deceptive conduct toward Jeremy by selling to him a Smart TV claiming that it has the required features and that it is the best product from Australia. However, later, Jeremy realized that it lacked may Smart TV features, and it was not even from Australia as the seller had claimed. A good example of a case where a business was sued due to misleading information is the case of ACCC v Telsala Cooperation Limited (2007). In this case, Telstra Cooperation was sued and fined due to its misleading conduct of advertising that it's Next G mobile network had coverage whenever you need it. The court ruled that this cooperation should be fined for providing misleading information.

Engaging in misleading conduct with matters of sustainability, characteristic, manufacturing process, and nature of a product for quantity and quality of a product prohibited by section (ALC ss 32) is also applicable in this case. When Jeremy was purchasing Smart TV, he was told that the TV had very good review which was not the case. Smart TV hence lacked the character and the quality that the customer had been promised. An example of a situation in this area is Doherty v Traveland Pty Ltd (1982) Where Traveland was offering a trip for 13 days and later change it to 11 days but continue issuing a brochure indicating that it is 13 days, the court decided that in this case, Traveland company had engaged in misleading conduct due to the provision of information about their services. In the case of Jeremy, the seller promised characteristics that were not present in the Smart TV sold to him.

Safety consumer protection act (ACL ss 106-7) is also relevant to the case of Jeremy. The Microwave that was sold to him had not reached the expected safety standard. As such, it caused a small fire in his kitchen that resulted in a loss of about $ 3500. In this case, Jeremy can sue the One Stop Shop for selling him a product with a low safety standard.

Application

Whenever a business or a manufacturer gives deceiving information, sell product that are below the expected standards or not safe for consumer use, Australia consumer law can be used to protect the customer.

Possible remedies suggested in this case include payment of damage caused to the consumer found in section (ACL s 236). In this case, One Stop Shop should pay Jeremy for the damage that was caused by a fire that resulted from a microwave. The other recommended remedy will provision of refund found under (ALC ss 261). Bothe One Stop and Boom Co should be required to refund Jeremy's money as all the products they sold to him were sub-standard.

Conclusion

The case of Jeremy shows the essence of complete faulty activities that should be protected by law. The reason why these actions were put into place is to ensure that businesses and producers do not exploit consumers. In this case, Jeremy has all the right to be compensated by the involved parties under Australia consumer law.

Bibliography

ACCC v Telstra Corporation Limited (2007) 244 ALR 470

Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681; 106 ER 250

Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571

Croser, Johanna. "Global reach of the Australian Consumer Law: Full steam ahead." Bulletin (Law Society of South Australia) 40, no. 9 (2018): 24.

Doherty v Traveland Pty Ltd (1982) 4 ATPR 40-323

Giancaspro, Mark. "Is a 'smart contract'' really a smart idea? Insights from a legal perspective." Computer law & security review 33, no. 6 (2017): 825-835.

James, Nickolas. Business Law. Wiley Blackwell (American Society Bone & Mineral Research), 2017.