The mailbox rule Forum

[Mauve Velociraptor]

I need help with this guys.

13. On day 1, X telegraphed an offer, seeking a promise, to Y. Y received that offer the same day. On day 2, Y mailed an acceptance to X. On day 3 Y changed his mind and mailed a rejection to X. The rejection arrived on day 5. The acceptance arrived on day 6.

(A) Y has accepted X's offer.

(B) Y has rejected X's offer.

I know the mailbox rule doesn't apply to this hypo, but do the rules for what is sent first and what is received first change? If X does not rely upon the rejection, does the acceptance still count?

[kalvano]

I need help with this guys.

13. On day 1, X telegraphed an offer, seeking a promise, to Y. Y received that offer the same day. On day 2, Y mailed an acceptance to X. On day 3 Y changed his mind and mailed a rejection to X. The rejection arrived on day 5. The acceptance arrived on day 6.

(A) Y has accepted X's offer.

(B) Y has rejected X's offer.

I know the mailbox rule doesn't apply to this hypo, but do the rules for what is sent first and what is received first change? If X does not rely upon the rejection, does the acceptance still count?

The mailbox rule applies. There was a contract formed as soon as Y dropped his acceptance in the mail.

I bet they want you to argue Restatement 40, though -
If you reject by mail, an acceptance sent after the rejection is only a counter-offer unless the acceptance is received by the offeror before he receives the rejection or counter-offer.

[evilxs]

Once you have rejected an offer it is no longer an offer. Because the rejection got there first no contract exists.

If the mailbox rule applied in the hypo then it would be accepted and be a valid contract as the moment of acceptance was the second it got stamped at the post office and left the control of the sender.

[Mauve Velociraptor]

The mailbox rule DOES NOT apply, the method for the acceptance was not as quick and secure as a telegraph. That is a prerequisite for the mailbox rule.

[kalvano]

The mailbox rule DOES NOT apply, the method for the acceptance was not as quick and secure as a telegraph. That is a prerequisite for the mailbox rule.

Not according to my professor. The mail might not have been preferable, but the mailbox rule can still apply.

Also, the offer did not specify a means of acceptance -

RS 63 -

Unless the offer provides otherwise,

(a) an acceptance made in a manner and by a medium invited by an offer is operative and completes the manifestation of mutual assent as soon as put out of the offeree's possession, without regard to whether it ever reaches the offeror


If the offeror doesn't specify how, the offeree can accept by any reasonable means.

[Renzo]

The mailbox rule DOES NOT apply, the method for the acceptance was not as quick and secure as a telegraph. That is a prerequisite for the mailbox rule.

No, acceptance be any means reasonable under the circumstances is the default rule. The same means as the offer is reasonable, but it's not the only reasonable means, unless there are facts that would make mail unreasonable.

[fathergoose]

the only thing you might be able to argue is that by telegraphing the offer, the offeror want the response via telegraph. But since it didn't specify, the offeree can respond in a reasonable fashion dependent upon the price volatility of the deal in question. If it was highly volatile then a slow response via mail is probably not reasonable.

Although if you are sending something via telegraph, this is probably happening 50-100 years ago when mail was just about as fast as you could send something so I would have a hard time believing a court would find it wasn't a suitable method of response since the offeror didn't specify

[Renzo]

Although if you are sending something via telegraph, this is probably happening 50-100 years ago

QFT. Response by time machine would be the only reasonable method.

[evilxs]

My professor told us that even US mail versus like UPS and Fedex had been successfully argued about in court. I would bet like with a lot of things jurisdiction comes into play.


For my professor mailbox rule would apply, but I answered it as you specifying it did not apply.

btw I love your username, it matches my avatar. June LSAT hell ftw

[Mauve Velociraptor]

[/quote]btw I love your username, it matches my avatar. June LSAT hell ftw[/quote]

Tell me about it.

Yea, my professor told us in class that the mailbox rule applies only when the acceptance is as fast and secure as the offer, regardless of specification on the offeror's part. Your responses only strengthens my belief that we're all taught some hybrid mix of law and professor's opinion.

[evilxs]

Your professor's opinion matters more than anything, he is grading the exam.

One of mine routinely teaches us opposite of the casebook while proclaiming in class: "I pronounce this wrong".

[usuaggie]

i would say it is a valid acceptance. my commercial flashcards agree with me.

[weee]

Trust your prof. they are grading you.

Also, you could hedge by saying "if the mailbox rule applied it would be a valid acceptance, but it probably won't apply because the acceptance was not as fast and secure yadda yadda.." maybe?