Communication by telex or by telephone, fax or e-mail is classified as “instantaneous” modes of communication. They are so called because in these modes, in the absence of the contracting parties, the notification of the offer or acceptance or counter-offer reaches the party in a fraction of a second or microsecond, that is, instantly in the form of electronic signals. The four current modes of communication are telephone, telex, fax and e-mail. Therefore, in case of acceptance, the contract is concluded when the acceptance reaches the applicant, that is, when he has heard the declaration of acceptance. The postal rule of completion of acceptance, which is considered complete upon acceptance during transmission, does not apply to communication by telephone or telex. In order to summarize the English legal position on the conclusion of the contract, the general rule is that a contract is concluded at the time and place where the supplier is informed of the acceptance of the offer in question. There are two main rules as to when the acceptance is communicated: if the parties are distant from each other and an offer is sent by mail, it is generally accepted in that country [United States] that the response accepting the offer can be sent by the same means, and if it is sent, the contract is concluded with the sending of the acceptance. . and beyond the control of the acceptor; the theory is that when you make an offer through the post office, he approves the acceptance which is made by the same means, his agent to get his acceptance; that the acceptance, when sent, is then communicated constructively to the supplier. In addition, the display rule does not apply to immediate forms of communication. For example, in Entores Ltd v. Miles Far East Corporation  2 QB 327, the Court held that the posting rule did not apply to telex acceptance, as it considered it to be an instant form of communication.
The general principle that acceptance occurs when it is communicated applies to immediate forms of communication. The courts have also ruled that the posting regulation applies to acceptance by telephone or fax. For more information on option contracts, see this article in the Florida State University Scholarship Repository, this california law review article, and this article in the Indiana Law Journal. The offer may indicate to whom the letter of acceptance can be addressed, in which case the letter must arrive at that place within the time limit, the message must be sent to the correct address or to the last known address. If the offer does not provide an address, the letter may be addressed to a reasonable or usual place such as the place of business or residence. The letter of acceptance may be sent to the sender`s address indicated in the letter if the usual address is not known. It cannot be said that a misdirected letter was included during transmission. Judge Man also noted that the assumption that the contract had been concluded in both places would be more consistent with the clearly expressed intentions of the parties, namely not to give the other an advantage in terms of applicable law and jurisdiction than “to introduce the somewhat random element of offer and acceptance”. The following statements refer to postal rules, which one is false? The (second) reformulation of contracts § 63 (1981) reflects the views of many States and distinguishes between an option treaty and a bilateral treaty. The reformulation states: “Unless otherwise provided in the Offer, (a) acceptance in a manner and by a means invited by an Offer will be effective and will complete the manifestation of mutual consent as soon as it is withdrawn from the Recipient`s possession, whether or not it reaches the Service Provider; (b) however, acceptance under an option contract shall not take effect until it has been received by the tenderer. One justification for this rule is that the bidder designates the position as its implied representative and therefore the receipt of acceptance by the post office is considered a receipt by the bidder. The main effect of the display rule is that the risk of acceptance being delivered late or lost in the mail passes to the supplier.
If the tenderer is reluctant to take this risk, he may at any time expressly request effective access as a condition before being legally bound by his tender. In the case of postal services, acceptance is completed as soon as the letter is placed in the mailbox (outside the authority of the recipient). In a telephone conversation, the contract is concluded only when the acceptance is received by the tenderer and the contract is concluded at the place where the acceptance is received. (Entores Ltd.c. Miles Far East Corp.) And the same verdict was rendered in “Bhagwandas v. Girdharilal”. In this blog post, Sakshi Bhatnagar, a student at Odisha National Law University, writes Cuttack about contractual absences and gives an overview of how postage and telephone can be used as a means of communication for offers and acceptances to enter into a valid contract between two or more parties who are not present next to each other at the time of entering into the contract. In Tallerman & Co Pty Ltd v Nathan`s Merchandise (1957) 98 CLR 93, 111-112, Dixon CJ and Fullagar J took a more restrictive view. `The general rule is that a contract is concluded only where the acceptance of a tender is actually notified to the tenderer and the finding that a contract is concluded by the publication of a letter of acceptance cannot be justified, unless it can be concluded that the tenderer has considered and intended that his tender can be accepted by performing that act.` The High Court included the element of intent. Please check the facts of Bhagwanda`s jurisprudence again. (the contract is concluded at the place where the BIDDER speaks of its acceptance) Thus, an offer can be revoked at any time before the target recipient has published the notice of acceptance. The revocation of the proposal is considered complete when it comes to the knowledge of the supplier. Any offer will be irrevocable by acceptance. The only exception to this rule is when the bidder first receives and relies on the rejection.
For example, if Garcia received the rejection on April 10 and signed a contract with the New York Yankees on April 11, then accepted the Red Sox on April 12, the Red Sox would not be able to enforce the contract because Garcia relied on the rejection. nice AND complete to clarify the confusion about the rule of the post vs telecom contract…. No problem In Conductive Inkjet Technology Ltd v Uni-Pixel Displays Inc  EWHC 2968 (Ch), the court dealt with a dispute between two parties, one based in England and the other in Texas. The agreement in question was a non-disclosure agreement that did not contain a choice of law and jurisdiction clause, since the parties had not been able to agree on a clause during the negotiations. The parties agreed to the contract in an email exchange, which was later signed by Conductive Inkjet Technology (CIT) in England and Uni-Pixel Displays (UPD) in Texas. CIT then claimed that UPD had used certain proprietary information in breach of the agreement and sought permission to serve claims against UPD in England. UPD challenged that decision on the ground that the English courts did not have jurisdiction in the matter. Civil courts do not follow the postal rule. The classic position of civil law is that the hypothesis, like any expression of intent, can only be effective if it has been communicated to the addressee, unless the absence of communication can be attributed to it.
 The Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods chooses a compromise between the two approaches: according to Article 18(2) of the Convention, an acceptance is effective when it reaches the supplier. However, Article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention provides for the most important consequence of the common law “posting rule”, namely that an offer cannot be revoked if the revocation reaches the target addressee after he has sent an acceptance.  Notification of an acceptance is complete only when the applicant is aware of the acceptance, i.e. .