Adam V. Lindsell Case

THE RELEVENT CASES OF POSTAL ACCEPTANCE RULE
 Adam v Lindsell
In cases between Adams v Lindsell. The defendant, Lindsell wrote the to the plaintiff, that state Lindsell offering to sell them some quantity of wool on 2nd September. Lindsell requested that the plaintiff, Adam to reply in course of post. However the letter was contained the offer that should be sent to Adam was wrongly addressed lindsell should sent the letter of the offer to Bromsgrove Leceister but it’s sent by the mistakes to Bromsgrove Worcestershire. Adam didn’t received any letter of the offer from Lindsell until 5th September. As the result of this delay, the letter of an offer does not received by Adam until 9th September, and to receive it. Because of the mistakes, this was two day later, Lindsell would have expected to received it. On 8th September Lindsell had sell he wool and gived the offer to the third party. Adam have brought of suits for the losses their sustained by not receiving the fleeches.
The cases between Adam v Lindsell is the case was consider when mutual assent to an mutual agreement occur in the particular circumstances of a mail contract. If nce was effective when it arrived at the address or when the defendant saw it, then no contract would have been made and sale to the third party would a mount to revocation of the offer. However, the courts held that the offer had been accepted as soon as the letter had been posted . Adam v Lindsell was indeed a contract in existence before the sale of the wool to the third party, even though the letter had not actually been received by defendant. The trial court was held that Adam’s acceptance was valid when Adam put it in the mail, and that any postponed in process of receiving the acceptance that w...

... middle of paper ...

...n wanted to sue the offeree, Stahag for breach of the contract.

The postal rule does not apply to direct or an instant forms of communication and including telex. As telex was used here the postal rule did not apply and the contract is was formed in Vienna. The Court is also are observed that even though with telex the message may not be received by the intended recipient immediately or there are may be agents or other third parties who receive the messages to be passed on to the intended recipient, a telex that goes directly from the offeree’s business to the offeror’s business. This is unlike a telegram which employs the use of a post office and should be treated as if it were an instantaneous communication. If a telex is sent to an office acceptance occurs when the telex reaches the place of business, not when it actually gets to the person it is addressed to.