Day la 1 case minh phai dien giai, moi nguoi giup minh xem the nay da dung chua: Normal 0 21 false false false NL X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";} On January 1, A Pty Ltd offered to sell a widget machine to B ltd for $20,000. On January 3, A sold the machine to C for $25,000, which is probably the true market value. On January 4, B posted a letter of acceptance to A. On January 5 at 9am A faxed B that it has sold the machine to C. At 3pm B’s letter of acceptance was delivered to A’s office. Advise B whether it has an action against A. v Issue: Can B Ltd sue A because of breaching contract? v Rule An offer is a definite promise to be bound on specific terms Acceptance is the unqualified agreement to the terms of the offer The postal rule: The offeror may expressly or by implication that he expects acceptance by means of a letter sent through the post. The postal rule states that, where the use of the post is within the contemplation of both the parties, the acceptance is complete and effective as soon as a letter is posted Revocation by the offeror: The offeror may revoke his offer at any time before acceptance. v Application This case can be divided into two situations: First situation is that on January 1, A Pty Ltd offered to sell a widget machine to B ltd for $20,000 by posting letter. On January 4, B posted a letter of acceptance to A. In this situation both A and B use the post method, so the acceptance of B is complete and effective on January 4( see Adams v Lindsell 1818). The contract between A and B was made on January 4. On January 5 at 9am A faxed B that it has sold the machine to C, this is revocation of A. However the acceptance had came before revocation, revocation therefore was not valid and B could sue A because of breaching the contract. Second situation is that On January 1, if A Pty Ltd offered to sell a widget machine to B ltd for $20,000 by instant method such as telephone or telex, fax, postal rule would be applied when in the content of letter, A told to accept any answering method from B, or accept to answer by posting. The contract was made on 4 January when the acceptance of B was posted. On January 5 at 9am A faxed B that it has sold the machine to C, this is revocation of A. However the acceptance had came before revocation, revocation therefore was not valid and B could sue A because of breaching the contract. On January 1, if A Pty Ltd offered to sell a widget machine to B ltd for $20,000 by instant method such as telephone or telex, fax, and A did not tell anything about the answering method, the acceptance of B would be valid as A received it on January 5 at 3pm. However, On January 5 at 9am A faxed B that it has sold the machine to C, this means the revocation had came before the acceptance. The acceptance was not valid and there was no contract made between A and B. B could not sue A because of breaching contract.
