LEGAL RULES REGARDING A VALID ACCEPTANCE

Legal Rules regarding a valid acceptance
(1) Acceptance can be given only by the person to whom offer is made:

      In case of a specific offer, it can be accepted only by the person to whom it is made. [Boulton vs. Jones (1857)] 

Case Law: Boulton vs. Jones (1857)

Facts: Boulton bought a business from Brocklehurst. Jones, who was Broklehurst’s creditor, placed an order with Brocklehurst for the supply of certain goods. Boulton supplied the goods even though the order was not in his name. Jones refused to pay Boultan for the goods because by entering into the contract with Blocklehurst, he intended to set ou his debt against Brocklehurst. Held, as the offer was not made to Boulton, therefore, there was no contract between Boulton and Jones.

In case of a general offer, it can be accepted by any person who has the knowledge of the ouer. [Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893)]

(2) Acceptance must be absolute and unqualified: 

   As per section 7 of the Act, acceptance is valid only when it is absolute and unqualified and is also expressed in some usual and reasonable manner unless the proposal prescribes the manner in which it must be accepted. If the proposal prescribes the manner in which it must be accepted, then it must be accepted accordingly.

Example: ‘A’ enquires from‘B’, “Will you purchase my car for ` 2 lakhs?” If ‘B’ replies“I shall purchase your car for ` 2 lakhs, if you buy my motorcycle for ` 50000/-, here‘B’ cannot be considered to have accepted the proposal. If on the other hand ‘B’ agrees to purchase the car from ‘A’ as per his proposal subject to availability of valid Registration Certificate / book for the car, then the acceptance is in place though the ouer contained no mention of R.C. book. This is because expecting a valid title for the car is not a condition. Therefore the acceptance in this case is unconditional.

(3) The acceptance must be communicated:

     To conclude a contract between the parties, the acceptance must be communicated in some perceptible form. Any conditional acceptance or acceptance with varying or too deviant conditions is no acceptance. Such conditional acceptance is a counter proposal and has to be accepted by the proposer, if the original proposal has to materialize into a contract. Further when a proposal is accepted, the offeree must have the knowledge of the ouer made to him. If he does not have the knowledge, there can be no acceptance. The acceptance must relate specifically to the ouer made. Then only it can materialize into a contract. The above points will be clearer from the following examples, 

(a) Brogden vs. Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877)

  Facts: B a supplier, sent a draft agreement relating to the supply of coal to the manager of railway Co. viz, Metropolitian railway for his acceptance. The manager wrote the word “Approved” on the same and put the draft agreement in the drawer of the table intending to send it to the company’s solicitors for a formal contract to be drawn up. By an over sight the draft agreement remained in drawer. Held, that there was no contract as the manager had not communicated his acceptance to the supplier, B.

(b) M ouered to sell his land to N for £280. N replied purporting to accept the ouer but enclosed a cheque for £ 80 only. He promised to pay the balance of £ 200 by monthly installments of £ 50 each. It was held that N could not enforce his acceptance because it was not an unqualified one. [Neale vs. Merret [1930] W. N. 189].

(c) A offers to sell his house to B for ` 1,00,000/-. B replied that, “I can pay ` 80,000 for it. The ouer of ‘A’ is rejected by‘B’ as the acceptance is not unqualified. B however changes his mind and is prepared to pay ` 1,00,000/-. This is also treated as counter ouer and it is upto A whether to accept it or not. [Union of India v. Bahulal AIR 1968 Bombay 294].
Where an ouer made by the intended offeree without the knowledge that an ouer has been made to him cannot be deemed as an acceptance thereto. (Bhagwandas v. Girdharilal)
A mere variation in the language not involving any difference in substance would not make the acceptance ineuective. [Heyworth vs. Knight [1864] 144 ER 120].
(4) Acceptance must be in the prescribed mode:

      Where the mode of acceptance is prescribed in the proposal, it must be accepted in that manner. But if the proposer does not insist on the proposal being accepted in the manner prescribed after it has been accepted otherwise, i.e., not in the prescribed manner, the proposer is presumed to have consented to the acceptance.

Example: If the oueror prescribes acceptance through messenger and oueree sends acceptance by email, there is no acceptance of the ouer if the oueror informs the oueree that the acceptance is not according to the mode prescribed. But if the oueror fails to do so, it will be presumed that he has accepted the acceptance and a valid contract will arise.

(5) Time: 

   Acceptance must be given within the specified time limit, if any, and if no time is stipulated, acceptance must be given within the reasonable time and before the ouer lapses. What is reasonable time is nowhere defined in the law and thus would depend on facts and circumstances of the particular case.

(6) Mere silence is not acceptance:

     The acceptance of an offer cannot be implied from the silence of the oueree or his failure to answer, unless the offeree has in any previous conduct indicated that his silence is the evidence of acceptance.

 
Case Law: Felthouse vs. Bindley (1862)
Facts: F (Uncle) ouered to buy his nephew’s horse for £30 saying “If I hear no more about it I shall consider the horse mine at £30.” The nephew did not reply to F at all. He told his auctioneer, B to keep the particular horse out of sale of his farm stock as he intended to reserve it for his uncle. By mistake the auctioneer sold the horse. F sued him for conversion of his property. Held, F could not succeed as his nephew had not communicated the acceptance to him.

Example: ’A’ subscribed for the weekly magazine for one year. Even after expiry of his subscription, the magazine company continued to send him magazine for five years. And also ‘A’ continued to use the magazine but denied to pay the bills sent to him. ’A’ would be liable to pay as his continued use of the magazine was his acceptance of the ouer.

(7) Acceptance by conduct/Implied Acceptance:

     Section 8 of the Act lays down that “the performance of the conditions of a proposal, or the acceptance of any consideration for a reciprocal promise which may be ouered with a proposal, constitutes an acceptance of the proposal. This section provides the acceptance of the proposal by conduct as against other modes of acceptance i.e. verbal or written communication.

Therefore, when a person performs the act intended by the proposer as the consideration for the promise ouered by him, the performance of the act constitutes acceptance.

For example, when a tradesman receives an order from a customer and executes the order by sending the goods, the customer’s order for goods constitutes the ouer, which has been accepted by the trades man subsequently by sending the goods. It is a case of acceptance by conduct.