The relevant legal concept at play in this scenario is the "postal rule" or "mailbox rule." According to the postal rule, an acceptance is effective when it is posted, rather than when it is received by the offeror. However, this rule only applies if it is expressly or impliedly stated in the offer that acceptance by post is acceptable.
In this case, since the offer was posted on the 20th of April 2024, and the letter of acceptance was also posted on the same day, the postal rule would likely be applicable. This means that the acceptance would be considered valid as of the date it was posted, regardless of when it was received by the offeror.
Regarding the revocation of the offer, it is important to consider whether the revocation was communicated effectively to the offeree before they posted their acceptance. If the revocation was not received by the offeree before they posted their acceptance, then the contract would likely be considered valid.
Therefore, Daniels can argue that the contract was already formed by the valid acceptance that was posted on the 20th of April 2024. If Jack had indeed communicated the revocation to Daniels before the acceptance was posted, then the contract may be considered invalid. However, due to the application of the postal rule, it is likely that the contract would be upheld.
In conclusion, Daniels should argue that the contract was validly formed based on the acceptance that was posted on the 20th of April 2024, and that the revocation communicated by Jack on the 21st of April 2024 was ineffective. The phenomenon shown by the facts highlights the importance of clear communication and understanding of the postal rule in contract formation.
An offer was made by Jack from the Netherlands (Amsterdam) to Daniels, a South African from Gauteng. The offer was accepted and duly posted on the 20/04/2024. On the 21st of April 2024, Jack (the offeror) decided to withdraw his offer and phoned Daniels (the South African) to inform him accordingly. Daniels (the South African offeree) is convinced that a valid contract was concluded, because the place where the letter of acceptance was posted will determine the validity of the contract. Contrary to this, Jack (the offeror from the Netherlands) argues that the message to revoke reached Daniels (the offeree) long before he himself received the letter of acceptance – the contract, therefore, never came into existence. Fully advise Daniels on the solution available to him and the phenomenon shown by the facts. (8)
1 answer