The Justifications of the Postal Acceptance Rule Post rules acceptance for the first time had been

founded in case of court of Adams Adams v Lindsell, when the court should solve an instant of the conclusion of the contract by mail. The court had established, that parties at dialogue of acceptance by mail had not been assured of an exact times of acceptance had been informed. As to a mail service is a subject to delays, parties cannot be at same instant known about communication. It had created a number of problems and had led to development of rules. This rule it is accepted in a general law of legal systems: "If circumstances are those, that it should be within the limits of contemplation of sides, that, according to usual customs of mankind, the message for accepting offer maybe used as means of dialogue, acceptance is full, no sooner did it is placed". (Dave Scott, 1999) Uncertainty concerning an instant conclusion of the contract does not occur in the environment face to face communications or even on distance agreeing where instant the way of communication is used. In such contracts, parties know all about the conclusion of the contract, and they do not collide from problem questions, such as delay or default of transfer which occur in not the instant communications. As opposed to it, Adams v Lindsell, accepted rules to avoid "Extreme and naughty" consequence which can follow if considered, that offer maybe cancelled at any time up to the offeree was in position " it accepts in fact has been received ". (Gibson, 2003) This justification for post is corrected represented, provides the best decision in

definition of time, that parties have reached a consensus of item of announcements and has been offered opinion, that at the moment of accommodation the letter, there will not be more chances of assembly of minds places, than during more recent time when the letter has been delivered.

Other reason was it has been suggested for action of such law, that offeror should be considered as proposed during all time that its offer in a position, and that, consequently, the agreement between parties is full no sooner did acceptance is published. This idea depends on the assumption, that said offer creates force which connects both sides and that the recognition is realization of this authority. Consequently, offeror in the beginning has full power to define actions which should represent recognition. However, after fferor decides for determination, a legal consequence goes out from its hands, because the offeree, by virtue of and offers has advantage above offeror during formation of the contract. Offeree probably requires additional time is required to solve, if really necessary for accepting this offer for this time, probably maybe necessary to spend money and effort in achievement to the decision. Few people go ahead including post office, as the agent of offeror. Thesiger LJ have offered agencies as a foundation of this law as it approved: As then these elements of the legislation, a subject of coordination in case of contracts are shaped on correspondence by mail? I do not see the best mode, than treatment of post office as the agent of both sides. (Gibson, 2003) (In the same place) This argument does not strike root literatures as mail and telegrams of the company are not obvious agents, which acceptances can be passed, in particular, as well known that mail, as the governmental agency on the public service, working under its own rules never maybe the agent in this area. Besides letters are always sealed, when are placed, thus, a content of the sealed letter, cannot really tell, have been finished to post office, which in any case no more than means for transfer acceptance, instead of on its reception. Simple delivery of letters by mail, in itself does not full obligation of contract.

In fact, it is possible to explain that the rule is effective as it realizes as business of convenience of the offeree and fair distribution of risks as it establishes final date of the contract and avoids circular communication. Any delay which occurs between passing and accepting to the message of letters creates potential risk for both sides because of uncertainty concerning is precious, when the message is considered received. Such background can be considered as a corner stone for application post corrected acceptances. Leaning on the conclusions of the contract in registration or the sending, established certain time for confirming between sides if they ask about it, without any further messages. It can be understood as it concludes, that courts in application for post objective rule to result a background of an indispensability and predict, that if the contract was to come into force, it maybe the best way reached on sending of acceptance . For example, if offeror asks the notice offeree owes the notice on reception and so on. (Simone, 2001) Other way of an illustration of data is shown, if A considered to recognize acceptance from B then B possess right for receiving notification from A, that reception of acceptance was received. And thus A possesses the right for receiving notification from B, that notification of reception of acceptance received. Carrying out of it to the logical completion, having put risk in hands, offeror is represented logical as it represents owner of the offer, and it is a possibility for or provide specific measures to be exposed potential risk. These traditional justifications were to approve concerning the post contract as it has been found out above, there is a time interval, and a delay between sending of the letter and to receive it and both sides are not in a condition, that they can supervise transfer of letters by mail. Thus, it can approve what if electronic contacting is similar on contacting by mail then can postal rules be applied to e-mail acceptance?

References Dave Scott, 1999.Should the postal acceptance rule be www.alsa.asn.au/docs/acj/1996/stott.html, accessed on April 8, 2011. applied to e-mail

Gibson, A. & Fraser, D. 2003, Business Law, Pearson Education Australia Pty Ltd, Frenchs Forest, NSW Gardner, 1992. Trashing with Trollope: A Deconstruction of the Postal Rule in Contract Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. G.H.Treitel, 1991. The Law of Contract,(8th edn Sweet and Maxwell London ) . Kathryn O Shea and Kylie Skeahan (1997) Acceptance of offers by E -mail How Far should the postal Acceptance Rule Extend? QUT Law Journal, Vol 13, pp 247-262 Simone W B Hill, 2001. E-mail contracts When formed Journal of Law and Information Science, Vol 12, No1, pp. 46-56 is the contract