MZUMBE UNIVERSITY

MBEYA CAMPUS COLLEGE

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE STUDIES

SUBJECT NAME: COMMUNICATION SKILLS

SUBJECT CODE: COM 070

LECTURE NAME: SIR. JOSHUA MJEMA

PROGRAMME: DL 1

NATURE OF ASSIGNMENT: GROUP ASSIGNMENT

GROUP NO 5

SUBMISSION DATE: 17ST JANUARY 2024

PARTICIPANTS NAMES

NO; NAMES REGISTRATION NO

01. ISMAIL KHALFAN NYUNGWA 2628044/T.23

02. CRISPIN ROBERT TARIMO 2628084/.23

03. MARTHA. F. MLELWA 2628109/T.23

04. SAADA. OMARY MASHAKA 2628043/T.23

05. SHARIFA SHABANI KISAVELI 2628056/.T23

06. COLLINS EMMANUELI MASAWE 2628111/T.23

07. HADIJA MUSSA RASHID 2628107/T.23

08. ABUNAYYA YUSUPH MGOMI 2628048/T.23

NO; NAMES REGISTRATION NO

09. MBONDE HAMISI MAGANGA 2628041/T.23

10. WINFRIDA GERALD SIMBAULANGA 2628125/23

11. KULWA M MTATILO 2628089/T.23

12 NEEMA JEREMAH 2625085/T.23

Question

An academic student how can you avoid plagiarism.

ISSUES
Whether there is any acceptance between Mamba and Maganga?
Whether Maganga can succeed in his said suit?

LAW APPLICABLE
Adam V Lindsell
Entores limited V Miles far East Corporation

Felt house V Bindley

Kennedy v Thomsen

Powell V Lee

Quenerduaine V Cole

The law of contract Act

ARGUMENT
The first issue to consider is the validity of Maganga’s acceptance, an acceptance is the final and
unqualified expression of assert to the term of an offer1, whereby in accordance to our scenario
there was no acceptance between the parties, due to the various ways,
the issue of communication the general rule is that an acceptance must be communicated to the
offeror in order to be effective2. Even if the oferee has made up his mind to a final accepts the
agreement is not yet complete. There must be an external manifestation of assent . Some spoken
or act done by the oferee or act done by his authorized agent this is seen in the case of Powell V
Lee 3where Mr. Powell, a candidate for the position of headmaster, received an indirect
indication from board members that he would be appointed. However, no formal acceptance was
conveyed directly to him. Subsequently, the board members canceled the resolution, leading
Powell to sue for breach of contract. The court ruled that since there was no valid acceptance
formally communicated to Powell, no contract was formed, and thus, there was no breach of
contract by the managers. The court emphasized the necessity of authorized persons conveying
acceptance for a valid contract the court held that “Acceptance subject to the contract is no
acceptance.“. The mode of communication specified by Mamba for acceptance is crucial in
determining its validity.Since on oferror may himself prescribe the method of communicating
acceptance , whether some particular mode has in fact been prescribed depends upon the
inference to be drawn from the circumstance There is for instance authority for the view that an
offer by telegram is presumptive evidence offer desire for a promptly reply and that an
1
Under section 2(1)d of the Law of Contract Act[CAP 354 R.E 2019].
2
Under section 4(1,2) of the Law of Contract Act [CAP 34 5R.E2019].
3
(1908), 99 L.T 284
acceptance sent by post may in such case be treated as nugatory4 it is also provided under section
7 (b) of the law of contract act. the observance of the mode prescribed by the offeror obviously
suffices to complete the agreement. In this case, Mamba explicitly stated that any acceptance
should be communicated via email within four days. This require forms part of the terms of the
offer and must be adhered to for a valid acceptance. Maganga failure to comply with this specific
mode of communication within the prescribed time frame renders his subsequent acceptance via
post on the fifth day ineffective. This leads us to the “postal rule” that provides Acceptance
must be communicated to oferee and the basic rule is that there is no contract until acceptance is
communicated The postal acceptance does not align with the method stipulated by Mamba since
he expected a reply via email and not otherwise and ended up not receiving Maganga’s postal
acceptance and therefore cannot be considered a valid acceptance, by referring to the case of
FELTHOUSE V BINDLEY5 is a landmark case that took place in nineteenth century in
England. The case involves a dispute over the sale of horse between an uncle, William Felthouse,
and his nephew, John Bindley. William felthouse had expressed his interest in purchasing the
house from Jonh Bindely. In a letter,Felthouse stated that if he did not hear back from Bindely,
he would assume that the horse was his. However, Bindely did not respond to the letter and
instead instructed his auctioneer to include the horse in an upcoming auction. The horse was sold
at the auction, and Felthouse filed a lawsuit claiming that there was a valid contract. The
judgment established an important principle in contract law know as the “Acceptance must be
communicated”rule. According to this rule, acceptance of an offer must be communicated to the
offeror for a contract to be formed.This case highlighted that silence cannot constitute
acceptance; rather, there must be clear communication of acceptance.
the present of the counter offer or new offer; where Maganga initially proposed to buy the
house for Tshs. 76 million, which can be seen as a counter-offer rather than an acceptance of
Mamba’s original offer for Tshs. 100 million. However, Mamba responded with a new offer to
sell for Tshs. 87 million, lapse of time, mamba stipulated that if Maganga wished to buy the
house, he was to reply within the four days. But Maganga failed to comply within the
mentioned days, where cause the result of unconformity with the demand of an offer due to
the circumstances and principles of a validity acceptance thus the acceptance must be clear and
absolute6 and also in the case of ADAM V LINDSELL7 in this case established the principal that
an acceptance takes effects when it is communicated, not when it is sent. In this case it is
pivotal contract law case that established the principle of the acceptance via postal
communication. In 1818, the defendant, Lindsell %Co., wrote to the climants, Adams %
Co.,offering to sell them a quantity of wool. The defendants mistakenly posted the letter to
adam with a correct date, resulting in a delay in the offer reaching that claimant. the central
question before the court was whether a contract was formed despite the delaying in
communication.the court ruled that a binding contract had indeed been formed when the
claimants posted their acceptance letter. The acceptance took effect upon posting, regardless
of whether it reached the intended recipient or not. This decision established the “postal rile”
or the “mailbox rule” in contract law, starting that acceptance is complete upon posting and
4
(1883) 32 W.R 185
5
[1862] EWHC CP J35.
6
Under section 7 (a) of the Law of Contract Act [CAP 345 R.E 2019].
7
cannot be revoked. So, this case clarified the method of acceptance via post and laid the
foundation for subsequent cases in this area.
The second issue is whether Maganga can succeed in the said suit? In this scenario Maganga
cannot succeed in the said suit because there was no acceptance and contract between them.
In legal implications is in light of these consideration, it is unlikely that Maganga can succeed in
a suit against Mamba for breach of contract or noany related claims. Maganga failure to adhere
to the prescribed mode of communication and timely acceptance renders his subsequent
attempt at acceptance ineffective. While contract law often aims to uphold agreements
between parties, it also places importance on adherence to prescribed formalities and
requirements for a valid contract formation. In this case, Maganga non-compliance with the
specified mode and timing for acceptance presents significant legal hurdles in establishing a
valid contract between him and mamba.ENTORES LIMITED V MILES FAR EAST CORPORATION8,
state that the communication of acceptance through instantaneous means such as telex and
established principles regarding instantaneous communication. These cases illustrate key legal
principles related to offer and acceptance, and timing issues in contract law that are relevant to
the scenario involving Mamba, Maganga and Rahma.
In generally; Based on the legal principles of offer and acceptance, communication of
acceptance and time issues, it appears that Maganga acceptance may not be valid in this
scenario. The counter-offer made by Maganga, failure to comply with mamba specified method
of communication for acceptance within the given time frame, and potential issues with timing
raise doubt about the effectivsssseness of Maganga acceptance. Therefore, it is uncertain
whether Maganga can succeed in a legal suit based on his purported acceptance of mamba
offer.

REFERENCE
Cases
Adam V Lindsell
Entores limited V Miles far East Corporation [1955]EWCA Civ 3.

Felt house V Bindley[1862] EWHC CP J35

Kennedy v Thomsen

Powell V Lee[1908] 99 L .T 284

8
[1955] EWCA Civ 3.
Quenerduaine V Cole

Statutes
The law of contract Act [345 R.E 2019]