JULY 2017

Question 2

Hani wrote a letter to Meena offering to sell a piece of land for RM 50,000. the letter stated
that the acceptance must be made by post on or before 20 May 2017. Meena sent a letter of
acceptance by post on 16 May 2017. However due to the shortage of manpower at the post
office, the letter was delivered on 25 May 2017. Is there a valid contract between Hani and
Meena?

Advise Meena.

Answer:

The issue occurred when the letter of acceptance sent by Meena was only sent on 25 May
2017 by the post office due to the shortage of manpower at the post office. It should be
assessed whether there was a valid contract.

The law applicable to this problem is Contracts Act 1950. In Section 4 (a) of Contract Act; it is
stated that the communication of an acceptance is complete as against the proposer, when
it is put in a course of transmission to him. This case fall under the Postal Rule (acceptance
through post) where the contract is binding on the offeror, irrespective of any delay or
disappearance of the letter of acceptance

The case that can be referred as an advice for Meena is Ignatius v Bell (1913). The court held
that the acceptance was exercised by the Plaintiff when the letter was posted on 16th
August. Therefore, the Defendant was bound to the contract.

Since Meena had already sent her letter of acceptance on 16 May 2017 which is earlier than
the date issued by Hani, it is said that the acceptance had been made and the contract was
valid. Meena should not be worried to be taken action against.