In contract proposal and acceptance of proposal are important ingredient. In last few articles, we have discussed, proposal, types of proposal, revocation of proposal and acceptance. In this article, we shall discuss revocation of acceptance in details.

Section 3: Communication, acceptance and revocation of proposals:

The communication of proposals the acceptance of proposals, and the revocation of proposals and acceptances, respectively, are deemed to be made by any act or omission of the party proposing, accepting or revoking by which he intends to communicate such proposal, acceptance or revocation, or which has the effect of communicating it.

Section 5: Revocation of proposals and acceptances:

A proposal may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterwards. An acceptance may be revoked at any time before the communication of the acceptance is complete as against the acceptor, but not afterwards.

Illustrations:

A proposes, by a letter sent by post, to sell his house to B.

B accepts the proposal by a letter sent by post.

A may revoke his proposal at any time before or at the moment when B posts his letter of acceptance, but not afterwards.

B may revoke his acceptance at any time before or at the moment when the letter communicating it reaches A, but not afterwards.

The word ‘revocation’ means “taking back”. The Indian Contract Act lays out the rules of revocation of an offer and acceptance in Section 5. It says an acceptance may be revoked at any time before the communication of the acceptance is complete as against the acceptor, but not afterwards. . Once the proposer receives communication of acceptance, revocation of the acceptance is not possible. In England, once letter of acceptance is posted, it binds both the parties and there appears to be no scope of revocation of acceptance by sending a telegram or through a phone call.

Section 3 of the Act, lays down that the communication of proposal, acceptance, and revocation is must. It may be expressed or implied. The express communication can be written, through emails, telegraphic, telephonic, minutes of a meeting, words of mouth or conduct. Thus revocation acceptance may be communicated in any way which has the effect of laying before the offeror that there is revocation of the acceptance but it should satisfy the criteria given in the Act.

Section 5 para 2 lays down that an acceptance may be revoked at any time before the communication of the acceptance is complete as against the acceptor, but not afterwards..

While Section 4 provides the time at which communication of acceptance and revocation of proposal and acceptance is complete, Section 5 first provides that both proposal and acceptance can be revoked, and secondly gives time before which the right of revocation should be exercised. Section 5 must be read along with Section 4.

Understanding Time Line of Revocation of Offer:

If the post is the correct method of acceptance, then acceptance takes place as soon as the letter is posted and not when it arrives. Provided the letter is properly stamped and addressed. Posted means put in control of post office, or one of its employees authorized to receive letters.

‘A’ offers by a letter dated April 2, sent by post, to sell his house to B at a certain price. B accepts the offer on April 6 by a letter sent by post. The letter reaches A on April 8 at 2 p.m. Here B may revoke his acceptance at any time before 2 p.m. on April 8, but not afterwards.

Sometimes, an interesting situation may arise. The letter of acceptance and the telegram containing revocation of acceptance may be delivered to the offeror at the same time. In such a situation the formation of a contract is a matter of chance. Which one is opened first by the offeror will decide the issue. Generally it is presumed that a man of ordinary prudence will first read the telegram. Hence, the revocation will be quite effective. When the parties at distant places communicate over telephone or telex, the question of revocation does not arise because there is instantaneous communication of the offer and its acceptance. The offer is made and accepted at the same time. In brief you should remember that an offer can be revoked at any time before the letter of acceptance’ is posted and an acceptance can be revoked before it reaches the offeror.

In Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation, [1955] 2 QB 327 case, the Plaintiffs (Entores) were an English Company and the Defendants (Miles Far East Co) were an American corporation with agents in various locations, including Amsterdam. An offer and acceptance in relation to a contract for Japanese cathodes was made between the companies in London and Amsterdam. Specifically:

• the Plaintiffs (in London) sent an offer by telex to the Defendants (in Amsterdam).
• the Defendants (in Amsterdam) sent an acceptance by telex to the Plaintiffs (in London)

The issue was when the contract entered into force, as this would determine whether Dutch or English law would apply to the contract. Specifically, the Court was required to determine whether the postal rule (providing that acceptance occurs when and where the letter is sent) applied to telex communications.

The court held that the contract and damages were to be decided by English law. It was stated that the postal rule did not apply for instantaneous communications. Since Telex was a form of instant messaging, the normal postal rule of acceptance would not apply and instead, acceptance would be when the message by Telex was received. Thus, the contract was created in London. This general principle on acceptance was held to apply to all forms of instantaneous communication methods. Acceptance via these forms of communication had to be clear before any contract is created.

Conclusion:

A proposal and acceptance can be revoked at any time before it creates a binding contract. A proposal can be revoked anytime before the acceptance is complete against the proposer so as to create a binding contract. And an acceptance can be revoked anytime before the communication of acceptance is complete against the acceptor. The mode of communication should be as prescribed. In England, once letter of acceptance is posted, it binds both the parties and there appears to be no scope of revocation of acceptance by sending a telegram or through a phone call.

Under the Indian Contract act, 1872, an acceptance may be revoked at any time before the communication of the acceptance is complete as against the acceptor, but not afterwards. Once the proposer receives communication of acceptance, revocation of the acceptance is not possible.

For More Topic in Contract Law Click Here

For More on Civil Laws Click Here

The post Revocation of Acceptance (Ss. 3 and 5) appeared first on The Fact Factor.

The party who makes the offer is known as the offeror, and the party who accepts the offer is known as the offeree. Termination of offer is where the offer is terminated before the other side(offeree) has the opportunity to accept or reject it.  There are a number of ways for an offer to be terminated. An offer is terminated in the following circumstances:

• Revocation
• Rejection
• Lapse of time
• Conditional Offer
• Operation of law
• Death
• Acceptance
• Illegality

Termination of Offer by Revocation:

The word ‘revocation’ means “taking back”. The Indian Contract Act lays out the rules of revocation of an offer in Section 5. It says the offer may be revoked anytime before the communication of the acceptance is complete against the proposer/offeror. Once the acceptance is communicated to the proposer, revocation of the offer is not possible. An offer can be revoked at any time before acceptance takes place. However, the revocation must be communicated effectively directly or indirectly to the offeree before acceptance.

In Payne v Cave, (1789) 3 TR 148 case, the claimant put his goods up for sale at a public auction. The defendant made the highest bid, but then changed his mind. He purported to withdraw the bid before the auctioneer’s hammer fell. The claimant argued that there was a completed contract and the defendant had to pay for the goods. The Court held in favour of the defendant. The defendant’s bid was an offer, which had been withdrawn before it was accepted. As such, there was no contract.

In Byrne v Van Tien hoven, [1880] 5 CPD 344 case, Van Tien hoven offered to sell goods to Byrne by letter dated 1st October. Byrne received the letter on 11th October and telegraphed an acceptance on the same day. On 8th October Van Tien hoven posted a letter revoking the offer. This letter was received by Byrne on 20th October. Van Tien hoven refused to go through with the sale. The Court held that to be effective revocation must be communicated. Where post is used for acceptance, acceptance occurs when and where sent (provided it is contemplated as a means of acceptance) (the ‘postal rule’). However, this rule does not apply in relation to revocation of offers – if post is used for revocation, communication is only effective if and when it is received by the offeree. In this case receipt of the revocation occurred after acceptance with the result that there was a contract formed in this case.

Termination of Offer by Rejection:

The refusal of an offer by the offeree is called rejection. An offer is terminated when the offeree communicates his rejection to the offeror. Once an offer has been rejected, it cannot subsequently be accepted by the offeree. A counter-offer ranks as a rejection, but a mere inquiry as to the possibility of varying some term does not.

In Hyde v. Wrench, (1840) 49 ER 132 case, the defendant(offeror) offered to sell his farm for £1000 but the Plaintiff(offeree) offered him £950 and subsequently rejected the offer. So, the offeree filed the case as the offeror was bind by the contract but it was held that as soon as offeree put the condition the first offer becomes void which means that the offeror is not bounded by the contract as the original offer was rejected by the offeree.

In Stevenson, Jacques v McLean, (1880) 5 QBD 346 case, the defendant possessed several warrants for iron. He wrote the claimant in London asking them if they could find him a buyer. After negotiations, the defendant stated that 40s per ton was the lowest price he was willing to sell for. He told the claimant that this offer was open until the following Monday. The claimants sent a telegram on Monday morning asking if the defendant agreed to delivery over two months, and if not, how long he could give. The defendant did not respond, and sold the warrants to a third-party later that day. Before he informed the claimant of this, they sent another telegram in the afternoon accepting the defendant’s offer. The claimant sued the defendant for damages for non-delivery of the iron. The defendant argued that the claimant’s first telegram was a counter-offer, and therefore that his original offer had been revoked. The Court held in favour of the claimant. The first telegram was merely an inquiry for information, not a counter-offer. While the defendant could have revoked his offer at any time on Monday, he failed to do so before the offer was accepted. There was therefore a completed contract between the parties. A mere inquiry would not be considered as rejection.

Termination of Offer by Lapse of Time:

Where in a contract, a fixed time has been prescribed to the offeree to communicate the acceptance, the offeree is bound to accept the offer within the fixed time so prescribed because after the expiry of the fixed time the offer lapses. The validity of the offer by the offeree would not be affected if the letter of acceptance so posted within the stipulated time reaches the offeror after the completion of the specified time (Postal Rule). Where there is no express time limit, an offer is normally open only for a reasonable time. The length for a reasonable time will depend on the circumstances of the case with respect to offers involving other types of subject matter, definition of a reasonable time depends upon the demand for the subject matters and upon the volatility of its price.

In Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore, case, the defendant, Montefiore wanted to buy shares in the complainant’s hotel (Ramsgate Victoria Hotel). He communicated his offer to the complainant that he wanted to buy shares in the hotel at a certain price. After six months, the complainant accepted the offer. However, by this time, the value of shares had gone down and Mr. Montefiore was no longer interested in buying shares. The defendant did not formally revoke the offer, but he did not proceed with the sale. The Complainant brought an action against the defendant for specific performance of contract. The Court passed an order in favour of the defendant. The Court held the company’s claim for specific performance was not successful because the Company had sufficient time to accept the defendant’s offer. Six months was sufficient time to accept an offer. The company accepted the offer after six months so, it was no longer valid due to expiry / lapses of a reasonable period of time. The Court was of the view that an offer must be accepted within the prescribed time and if a time is not prescribed, then it must be accepted within a reasonable period of time.

In Dickinson v Dodds, case, on 10th June Dodds offered to sell house to Dickinson, stating: this offer to remain open until 9.00am on 12th June. Dickinson decided to accept on 11th June but did not advise Dodds immediately. Later on the 11th, Dickinson was informed by a third party that Dodds had sold to someone else. Dickinson then purported to accept the offer. Dodds replied that it was too late – the property had already been sold. The Court held that no particular form of revocation is required. All that is required is that the offeror in some way conveys (directly or indirectly) to the offeree that s/he had changed his or her mind about the offer. There was no question that this had occurred here – Dickinson knew Dodds was no longer prepared to sell before purporting to accept. The promise to keep the offer open was not binding because it was not supported by consideration.

Termination of Offer by Condition:

An offer which expressly provides that it is to terminate on the occurrence of some condition cannot be accepted after that condition has occurred; and such a provision may also be implied. In other words, termination of an offer may also occur due to a condition not being met.

In Financings Ltd v Stimson, [1962] 3 All ER 386 case, the parties entered into a hire-purchase agreement for a car. The claimant, a finance company, gave the dealer authority to draw up the agreement on its behalf. That agreement stated that it would only be binding on the claimant once the claimant had signed and accepted it. Two days later, before the claimant signed the agreement, the defendant informed the dealer that he no longer wanted to go through with the agreement. The night before the claimant signed the agreement, the car was stolen from the dealer. By the time the car was found, it had been damaged. The claimant sued the defendant for the price of the car, minus a deduction for the value of the damage. The defendant then argued that he was not obliged to pay, because he had revoked his offer before the claimant signed the agreement. The Court of Appeal held in favour of the defendant. The dealer acted as the claimant’s agent. In that capacity, he had ostensible authority to accept the defendant’s revocation of the offer. Since the claimant had to sign the contract to accept the offer, and they had not done so before the offer was revoked. Therefore, there was no contract. Additionally, the Court held that the offer was conditional on the car being in the condition it was when the offer was made. As such, even if the offer had not already been revoked, it was no longer capable of being accepted once the car was damaged.

Termination of Offer by Operation of Law

If there is no option contract, death or incapacitation of either party prior to acceptance will terminate the offer. It does not need to be communicated to the other party either. Death and incapacity do not terminate irrevocable offers. If the laws change prior to acceptance of the offer, the law will terminate the offer because it would become a void contract. In the event that the subject matter of the offer is destroyed prior to acceptance, this constitutes termination of the offer as well.

Termination of Offer by Death or Mental Incapacity:

The right to accept an ordinary offer is not transferable. Thus, the death of either the offeror or the offeree will cause termination of the offer. The unaccepted offer of a deceased person cannot be converted into a contract binding upon his estate.

In Raja of Bobbili v. A. Suryanarayana Rao, (1919) 42 Mad 776 case, an auction sale was held by the Court, the bid was subject to its sanction or acceptance by the Court but before the Court could accept it, the bidder died and it was held that on the death of the bidder his bid stood revoked.

In Reynolds v Atherton, (1922) 127 LT 189 case, the claimant were a firm of cotton brokers. They acted under a brokerage contract with the defendant, a cotton spinning company. In order to renew their contract, the claimant purchased various shares in the defendant. In 1911, the claimant wrote the company a letter addressed to the directors. It stated that the claimants were willing to transfer their shares, while they remained the defendant’s broker. The defendant acknowledged the letter but did not respond until 1918. By that time, the shares had risen considerably in value and the composition of the defendant’s board of directors had changed. Three directors had also died. The defendant sent a letter purporting to accept the claimant’s offer on behalf of the directors who had run the company in 1911 (including the estates of those who had died). The claimant sought a declaration that there was no enforceable contract. The House of Lords held in favour of the claimant. The claimant had made their offer to the board of directors as an entity, whose composition might change. They had not made the offer to the particular directors who ran the company in 1911. The defendant’s letter had therefore not properly accepted the offer.

Termination of Offer by Acceptance:

Once the offer was accepted by the offeree, the contract is formed and brought the offer to an end. It can be made either orally, in writing, or by the implication of conduct when they are received by the offeror.

In Felthouse v Bindley, (1862) EWHC CP J35 case, the complainant, Paul Felthouse, had a conversation with his nephew, John Felthouse, about buying his horse. After their discussion, the uncle replied by letter stating that if he didn’t hear anymore from his nephew concerning the horse, he would consider acceptance of the order done and he would own the horse. His nephew did not reply to this letter and was busy at auctions. The defendant, Mr Bindley, ran the auctions and the nephew advised him not to sell the horse. However, by accident he ended up selling the horse to someone else. The Court held that there was no contract for the horse between the complainant and his nephew. There had not been an acceptance of the offer; silence did not amount to acceptance and an obligation cannot be imposed by another. Any acceptance of an offer must be communicated clearly. Although the nephew had intended to sell the horse to the complainant and showed this interest, there was no contract of sale. Thus, the nephew’s failure to respond to the complainant did not amount to an acceptance of his offer.

Illegality:

Finally, a change in the law which makes a potential contract illegal will terminate an offer, since courts will not enforce an illegal contract.

Conclusion:

Termination of an offer is not the same as contract termination. In the case of termination of an offer, the contract was not fully formed. Termination of an offer ends the power of the offeror to perform. A termination of offer can only be terminated prior to the offeree accepting it. It can happen by one of the party’s actions or operation of law.

For More Topic in Contract Law Click Here

For More on Civil Laws Click Here

The post Termination of Offer appeared first on The Fact Factor.

A contract is an agreement which is enforceable by law. Hence we use word contract it satisfies all legal requirement. Hence the word “Void contract” is wrong. It should be “void agreement”. Thus contracts can only be valid or voidable.

The term “proposal” of the Indian Contract Act is synonymous to the term “Offer” in English law. Section 2(a)of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines proposal as “when one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal”. The person making proposal/offer is called the proposer/offeror and the person to which the proposal is made is called propose or offeree.

Section 2(b) of the Act defines the term ‘Promise’ and and 2 (c) of the Act defines the terms ‘Promisor’ and ‘Promisee’. According to Section 2(b) of the Act, When a person to whom the proposal is made, signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted. A proposal, when accepted, becomes a promise; According to Section 2(c) of the Act, the person making the proposal is called the “promisor”, and the person accepting the proposal is called “promisee”. Section 2(f) of the Act defines the term ‘Reciprocal Promises’ as “Promises which form the consideration or part of the consideration for each other are called reciprocal promises.”

Section 2(e) of the Act defines the term “agreement’ as “Every promise and every set of promises, forming the consideration for each other, is an agreement.”

Thus, Agreement = Promise + Consideration

If A tells B “he is interested in buying his (B’s) car for 2 lakh rupees. Will, you sell the car to me?”. Here, with information, there is a consideration (₹ 2 lakhs) and expectation of ascent from B. Now if B accepts the offer of ₹ 2 lakhs to sell his car to A. There are reciprocal promises between A and B and there is legal consideration, then it is an agreement.

Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act – 1972 defines the criteria of valid contracts.

Section 10 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872

What agreements are contracts— All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void.

Nothing herein contained shall affect any law in force in [India] and not hereby expressly repealed by which any contract is required to be made in writing or in the presence of witnesses, or any law relating to the registration of documents.

Part-1 of section 10 gives criteria to call an agreement as a contract. Part-2 of section10 gives guidelines for a written contract as per other Acts.

Ingredients of Valid Agreement (Part 1 Section 10):

An agreement is a contract if satisfies all the following criteria

1. The agreement should be by the free consent (coercion, undue influence, misrepresentation, mistake or fraud) (section 13 to 22)
2. The parties involved in the contract are competent. (Section 11 and 12)
3. The agreement is for a lawful consideration and a lawful object. (Section 23 to 25)
4. It is not an agreement expressly declared to be void. Social, moral and religious agreements are void w.r.t. contract. (Section 26 to 30)
5. The agreement should be legally enforceable.

If any of this condition is not satisfied it is a void agreement and not a contract.

Written Contracts  (Part 2 Section 10):

The Contract Act does not require every contract to be in writing. If a contract is to be in writing as required by the provisions of any other law, then it must also be in writing.

For example, as per the Companies Act, the memorandum and the Articles of Association must be in written form, then the contract law also insists it in a written form only. Similarly, by the Transfer of Property Act, all the documents like sale-deeds, leases, mortgage deeds must be in writing then the contract law also insists them in a written form only. If by the Indian Registration Act, registration of documents is required then the contract law also insists that such requirements should be observed. Acknowledgement to save the law of limitation is also required to be in writing by Sec. 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Submissions under the Arbitration Act are similarly required to be in writing.

Hand Witten Words on Printed Contract:

Handwritten changes or additions to a printed contract are part of the contract, as long as both / all parties to the contract agree to the changes/additions. The agreement is demonstrated by placing their initials and date of acceptance to changes next to the handwritten changes, each person placing their initials is signifying they have read the handwritten portion and are agreeing to it a part of the contract, just like the parts which are printed.

Not putting initials next to a written change in a contract can lead to one party attempting to say they never agreed to those terms which would likely lead to litigation. Court has shown a view that the handwritten words reflect the real and immediate intention of the parties.

In W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd v.  Mayo [2013] NSWSC 1063 case, the Supreme Court of New South Wales rectified a lease contract (made by the plaintiff and the defendant themselves without hiring a lawyer) on the basis that there were inconsistencies between the printed terms of a template lease and the handwritten terms. The Supreme Court, in this case, gave more weight to the hand-written provisions in the contract. The court held that more weight should be given to the hand-written components as these required the particular attention of the drafter similarly they required the parties to put their mind to a provision. Court further added that the conflicts may be avoided entirely. To avoid unnecessary issues and conflicts, let the lawyer prepare the contract for the parties in a clash of interpretation. They have the knowledge, skills and expertise to create a contract that will embody the real intention of parties, can protect your interests. The expense of a paying a lawyer to look over and draft every contract initially seem massive, however, that expense is often small compared to the cost of litigation.

In Robertson v. French, (1803) 4 East 130 case. the Court held that Where there is conflict between the printed and written clauses of a policy, greater consideration will be paid to the written clauses.

Conclusion:

The Indian Contract Act 1872 states the term contract is like an agreement that creates an obligation between parties. According to the act, the contract is “an agreement enforceable by law.” According to the Indian Contract Act 1872, “Agreements are also contracts made by the consent of parties, competent to contract to consider with a lawful object and are not hereby expressly declared to be void”. Agreement must be free from coercion, undue influence, misrepresentation, mistake or fraud and it is made between parties competent to contract.

For More Topic in Contract Law Click Here

For More on Civil Laws Click Here

The post Valid Agreement appeared first on The Fact Factor.