USE TEXT A BELOW TO ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT FOLLOW, REMEMBER TO ADD AUTHORITY AS YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Question

NB:YOU ARE A PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW STUDENT AND SUPPOSED TO ANSWER THIS QUESTIO.
TEXT A
Once it is determined that the dispute in question falls within the ambit of a choice of law rule, it is then a matter of determining which legal system is indicated by the connecting factor. This again appears relatively simple—where was the marriage celebrated? A simple question of fact—but it may be more difficult. Suppose, for example, that, having applied the choice of law rule, the connecting factor points to the applicability of the law of X; X’s law, however, also has choice of law rules, which use different connecting factors and, if those rules are applied, they direct that, say, the law of A, not the law of X, should be applied. Since X’s conflict rules, as we have seen, form part of the law of X, it appears prima facie that, if the local court’s conflict rules direct that the law of X be applied, X’s conflict rules too should apply, ie that, in fact, there should be onward reference to the law of A! This is the famed, perhaps notorious, conceptual question of renvoi. It too will be more fully discussed elsewhere. Moreover, it may be that the lex fori interprets the connecting factor in one way, and the lex causae in another. A South African court, for example, will consider a contract concluded where the letter accepting the offer is posted, but a German court will take the view that the contract is concluded where the letter is received. If the locus contractus of a contract concluded by posting a letter in South Africa accepting an offer made by a German offeror is the connecting factor in question, it is plain that that connecting factor will be differently interpreted by German and South African law. Since the connecting factor, however, is part of the local court’s choice of law rule it follows that the lex fori must be used in the determination of the connecting factor. It may be noted that this rule may well mean the law applicable to the contract in question will vary depending upon where a matter is litigated, thereby defeating, even at this early stage, a major purpose of private international law. Moreover, this cannot be an entirely infrangible rule because where nationality is used as a connecting factor the potential lex causae rather than the lex fori must be used.
QUESTION:
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

Answer 1

In this case, the issue at hand involves the determination of the validity of the contract between Jack and Daniels, and the conflicting views regarding when the contract was actually formed - whether upon posting of the acceptance letter or upon receipt of the acceptance letter.

The concept of contract formation through posting of acceptance letters is known as the postal rule, based on the presumption that acceptance is communicated at the moment it is posted. However, it is essential to consider that there may be differences in interpretation of the postal rule depending on the jurisdiction.

As a South African from Gauteng, Daniels may rely on South African law, which considers the contract concluded where the letter of acceptance is posted. On the other hand, Jack, being from the Netherlands, may assert that under Dutch law, the contract is only formed upon receipt of the acceptance letter.

Therefore, Daniels has the option of approaching a South African court to uphold the validity of the contract based on the South African postal rule. However, he must also be prepared for the possibility that Jack may choose to litigate in the Netherlands, where the Dutch law regarding contract formation may be applied – that is, the contract is only formed upon receipt of the acceptance letter.

In conclusion, while Daniels may have a strong argument in his favor based on the South African postal rule, the conflicting views regarding the formation of the contract depending on local laws highlight the complexities of cross-border contractual matters and the importance of understanding the laws of the relevant jurisdictions involved, which could ultimately impact the outcome of the dispute. (Smith, 2018)