Ior my Law of Contract I students

1be fltst lssoe ls wbetbet o bloJloq coottoct bos beeo coocloJeJ Jotloq tbe meetloqs betweeo
lNoppy ooJ 5oftklJz ooJ tbot tbe wtltteo offet/occeptooce wete mete fotmolltles


A conLracL Lo be blndlng requlres a meeLlng of Lhe mlnds beLween Lhe parLles 1hls means LhaL
Lhe offer musL maLch Lhe accepLance lor example secLlon 7 sLaLes LhaL AL Lhe same Llme
lnappy ls argulng LhaL Lhere ls a blndlng conLracL because conLracLs can be oral and Lherefore
lL ls noL necessary LhaL a blndlng agreemenL has Lo be ln wrlLlng 1hus when afLer Lhe meeLlngs
and dlscusslons lL ls posslble LhaL an agreemenL has been reached Powever when lnappy sald
LhaL Lhe agreemenL ls sub[ecL Lo a wrlLLen offer from SofLkldz a quesLlon arlses wheLher Lhere
was ln facL a meeLlng of Lhe mlnds even aL Lhe end of Lhe dlscusslons

usually when Lhe words sub[ecL Lo a conLracL" are used Lhe courLs would be lncllned Lo
declde LhaL Lhere ls no agreemenL yeL (Lxplaln cases here LhaL are relaLed Lo Lhe Loplc of
agreemenLs sub[ecL Lo conLracL and explaln Lhe reason why Lhe courLs usually declde LhaL
Lhere ls no conLracL yeL)

Slmllarly (or based on Lhe above cases/prlnclples) when lnappy menLloned LhaL Lhe agreemenL
was sub[ecL Lo an offlclal wrlLLen offer" lL seems Lo lmply LhaL an agreemenL has noL been
reached beLween Lhe parLles 1hls ls because Lhelr accepLance would be quallfled and Lhls goes
agalnsL secLlon 7 of Lhe ConLracLs AcL

1hus Lhe argumenL/conLenLlon of lnappy LhaL Lhere was a blndlng agreemenL and LhaL Lhe
wrlLLen offer/accepLance were mere formallLles ls lncorrecL

1be secooJ lssoe ls wbetbet tbete bos beeo o vollJ occeptooce wbeo lNoppy seot tbelt
occeptooce lettet oo 10 Aoq

An accepLance ln a conLracL wlll generally be deemed compleLe when lL comes Lo Lhe
knowledge of Lhe offeror/proposer Powever when Lhe posL ls used as Lhe means of
communlcaLlon Lhe posLal rule wlll apply 1he posLal rule means LhaL an accepLance ls
compleLe once lL ls posLed (or puL ln Lhe course of Lransmlsslon)

1hls ls sLaLed ln secLlon (Lxplaln Lhe secLlon)

ln Lhe case of Adams v Llndsell/lgnaLlus v 8ell (facLs) (declslon) Lhe declslon of Lhe courL ln
Lhese cases apply Lhe prlnclple of posLal rule because Lhe offer and accepLance were done by
posL 1he same prlnclple should also apply beLween lnappy and SofLkldz because Lhey also used
pos la[u whlch ls slmllar Lo an ordlnary posL/mall correspondence

PCWLvL8 desplLe Lhe posLal rule lL ls clearly sLaLed ln SofLkldz's leLLer LhaL Lhe accepLance
musL be done by noLlflcaLlon ln wrlLlng" lL can be argued LhaL noLlflcaLlon" means LhaL Lhe
accepLance should come Lo Lhe knowledge of Lhe proposer ln oLher words lL ls noL enough
LhaL lnappy sends Lhelr accepLance by posL Lhelr accepLance musL acLually reach SofLkldz
before Lhere can be acLual noLlflcaLlon as prescrlbed ln Lhe offer

SecLlon ___ on prescrlbed means of accepLance (Lxplaln) 1hls secLlon should apply because
of Lhe words noLlflcaLlon ln wrlLlng"

Also ln Lhe case of (Lxplaln a case LhaL ls relaLed Lo Lhls lf Lhere are any)

& lt ls posslble to oJJ oootbet lssoe le lssoe oo tevocotloo of offet 8ot lt JepeoJs lf yoo bove
eoooqb tlme ot oot