On Wednesday Odentum Ltd offers to sell 100 tonnes of steel to Astrix Enterprise at £500 per tonne. The offer to Astrix states: ‘Please telephone or email an acceptance by noon today
Dear Client,
Re: Offer and acceptance
In a market economy, entities have to come up with innovative contractual offers to facilitate the successful execution of transactions. By selling well-accepted and competitively-priced products and services, companies can increase sales revenues and market reputation instantly. Effective management of the offer and subsequent acceptance mechanisms ensures a transparent customer relationship wherein the buyers trust the credibility of the seller firm. However, misunderstandings arise from cases and scenarios involving offer and acceptance, even while the concerned parties seek to cement an agreeable transaction. It is necessary that they consider the consensus implication accorded to all such cases for the attainment of suitable measures to address the interests of the affected business contract, as illustrated in this case study. Following the failed delivery of the proposed carriage contract for the desired cargo steel implies the absence of mutual consensus needed to authenticate the business deal between Odentum Ltd and Astrix Enterprise. This corresponds to the legal position that consensus forms the foundation of a business contract to ensure that the parties have counterparts on the same essential issue. Outgoing offers would fail to satisfy contract formation when there is no express or implied acceptance asynchrony, considering the failed delivery on paper. Thus, the letter seeks to highlight the merits and demerits of the offer and acceptance rule in this case to guide Astrix Enterprise in its legal mitigation choices against Odentum Ltd.
The most annoying thing to the clerical officer in this case was the inability of the fax machine to print. The tech failure incident corresponds to the traditional postal rule. In this perspective, acceptance only takes effect when the forwarding party has received the acceptance response (Rexbrits Locus, 2022). The postal rule, which is partee (both way), describes the mechanics of acceptance in business dealings via traditional mail transport systems (Rexbrits Locus, 2022). This means that Odentum Ltd. would only be bound if Astrix Enterprise resends the acceptance letter via traditional post or temporally submits it in person, whereby their compliance would establish a contractual agreement. The failed delivery of faxed material espouses the uncertainties in the application of the postal rule, much to the displeasure of the parties who had expected to form a contract geographically and electronically (Rexbrits Locus, 2022).
The £50k contract between Astrix and Odentum Ltd could not join the two legal entities because the £500 per ton steel offer needs to be retracted first. Nevertheless, law firms like Twickly & Co can leverage the technological advancement alternative to magnum opus rexure of the wheedling postal rule and protect the consumers’ willingness to make contracts. The Technology Rule is necessary because it eliminates the ineffective back and forth via ordinary post and wrong technological assumptions. The technology rule supports the act of acceptance by sending an email or business check and entering the agreement (Rexbrits Locus, 2022). The traditional postal rule makes it torture and impossible to do business in the above case. It is prudent to explore current technology, including faxes, to ensure the value, specifically the £2,500 contract variant, is protected in law.
Thank you for your support; I am look forward to the fruitful engagements moving forward.
Sincerely,
The Partner