Postal Rule Case Study

In the 18th century, the postal rule was established. Through the ruling in the case of Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681, the judge held that the acceptance occurred in regards to contracts as soon as the offeree placed the contract in the mail. The creation of this rule is argued to have helped with economic efficiencies and problems of offerors stating they never received the contract to avoid liability. All risk falls on the offeror if the acceptance was lost or delayed. Without the ability to have instant communication, the offeror could start enacting the agreed contract without the delay of seeing the physical contract.

With the growth of technology this rule has now extended to emails. But realizing that emails are different to the post, an amendment was made 13A.

Under the new section, 13A(1)

The emails are similar to post in the fact that there is a third party, or agent that is in control of the delivery. But holding an offeror accountable for a contract where the email was lost or undelivered seems harsh. In Scotland, the postal rule is adopted but Judges decide who is liable on a case basis in regards to a lost acceptance. For example in the case of Mason v Benhar Coal Co (1882) 9 R 883, Lord Shand stated, the contract would not hold just because it was posted, the rule was in place to deal with the issue of revoking. This was also reestablished in the Irish courts when it was stated it was unjust to hold a party to a contract they were not aware they had entered into Kelly v Cruise Catering Ltd [1994] 2 ILRM 394.

This would be one of Aratakis suggestions of amendments, holding our business liable because we did not receive the electronic communication does not seem justified or satisfactory. The offeree is receiving a benefit from the contract so should the risk be weighted