Suggested

 Answers  
 
 
1. John’s  1  email  to  Sarah  on  the  21st  of  September  is  an  offer  because  
st

it  manifests  clear  intention  to  get  into  a  binding  contract.  Sarah  

happily  accepted  the  offer  and  replied  immediately  using  the  same  
communication  method,  email,  which  was  used  by  the  offeror.  The  
contract  is  only  complete  when  the  acceptance  is  received  by  the  
offeror  and  the  offeree  has  a  duty  to  take  all  reasonable  steps  to  
ensure  that  the  acceptance  is  properly  communicated  [Entores  V  
Miles  Far  East  Corp].  In  the  given  scenario,  Sarah  was  only  asked  to  
appear  in  person  as  soon  as  possible  to  collect  the  stamps  and  hence  
it  was  only  conduct  that  was  required;  no  formal  acceptance  was  
sought.  Still,  since  Sarah  was  not  in  a  position  to  collect  the  stamps  
straightaway,  she  decided  to  send  an  acceptance  notice  that  would  
buy  her  some  time.  There  seems  to  be  no  problem  with  this  but  since  
that  email  never  reached  John  and  for  obvious  reasons  John  never  got  
back  to  Sarah,  it  only  appears  reasonable  that  Sarah  should  have  
followed  up  and  sent  at  least  another  email  just  to  check  everything  
was  in  order.  Perhaps  she  could  make  a  phone  call  or  take  some  
other  steps  to  secure  the  deal  with  John.  But  Sarah  failed  to  take  
reasonable  steps  to  ensure  that  the  acceptance  was  communicated  
and  hence  it’s  more  likely  that  the  court  would  not  find  a  valid  
contract  in  favor  of  Sarah.  
 
Moreover,  John  is  legally  under  no  obligation  to  keep  his  offer  open  
and  wait  for  Sarah  to  accept  it.  In  fact  the  offeror  is  free  to  withdraw  
the  offer  anytime  before  it  is  accepted  [Dickinson  V  Dodds].  Even  
though  the  error  in  the  email  server  was  at  John’s  end,  it’s  a  fault  that  
transpires  to  be  beyond  John’s  control  and  most  importantly,  John  
was  not  in  a  position  to  anticipate  Sarah’s  email  anyway  since  he  
didn’t  ask  for  an  acceptance  notice  by  email.  So  it  appears  to  be  quite  
difficult  to  hold  John  responsible  for  the  mishap.  Sarah  finally  visited  
John  to  collect  the  stamps  after  around  a  month  and  if  this  conduct  is  
considered  to  be  the  prescribed  method  of  acceptance,  Sarah  still  is  
unlikely  to  be  able  to  establish  that  there  was  a  valid  contract.  The  
court  in  this  situation  is  most  likely  to  find  one  month  an  
unreasonable  delay  and  find  the  offer  ‘lapsed’  [Ramsgate  V  
Montefiore].  So  saying  that  there  is  no  binding  contract  between  the  
parties  can  safely  conclude  it.  
 
 
  
2. Cherry’s  letter  to  Blossom  appears  to  be  a  bit  vague  as  to  if  it’s  an  
offer  or  invitation  to  treat  since  it  doesn’t  mention  a  price  for  the  cat.  
There  might  have  been  previous  talks  between  the  parties  regarding  
the  price  in  which  case  the  letter  may  be  treated  as  an  offer.  Or  
perhaps  Cherry  was  instead  fishing  for  an  offer  from  Blossom  merely  
putting  the  cat  up  for  sale  [Fisher  v  Bell].  Or  maybe  Cherry  was  
asking  for  information  if  Blossom  was  interested  to  buy  the  cat,  
which  the  letter’s  wording  suggests  and  in  which  case  the  letter  can’t  
be  considered  as  an  offer  [Harvey  V  Facey].  In  any  case,  Blossom  did  
reply  to  Cherry’s  letter  via  post  and  if  Cherry’s  letter  was  an  offer  
then  Blossom  accepted  the  offer  as  soon  as  she  posted  the  letter  
[Adams  V  Lindsell].  Blossom  was  asked  to  notify  Cherry  by  Saturday  
but  Blossom  communicated  the  acceptance  on  Thursday  (postal  rule)  
and  hence  there  seems  to  be  no  issue  here.  
 
Problem  arose  when  Blossom  wanted  to  withdraw  the  acceptance.  
The  general  rule  is,  once  an  offer  is  accepted,  there  is  a  valid  contract  
and  there  is  no  scope  for  withdrawal  of  acceptance.  But  what  if  the  
offeror  is  notified  of  the  cancellation  of  the  acceptance  before  it  
actually  reaches  him?  This  is  generally  the  rule  of  revocation  and  the  
court  may  refer  to  this  principle  in  this  situation  [Byrne  V    Van  
Tienhoven].  The  court  is  most  likely  to  enforce  what  is  more  
reasonable.  Blossom  called  to  withdraw  her  acceptance  or  revoke  her  
offer,  whatever  the  court  considers  depending  on  the  circumstances,  
but  was  unable  to  get  a  hold  of  Cherry  and  she  left  a  message  in  the  
answering  machine.  Now  Cherry  received  the  letter  of  acceptance  
and  right  after  that  listens  to  the  withdrawal/revocation.  It  may  be  
argued  that  Blossom  received  both  the  messages  almost  at  the  same  
time  and  it  deems  from  the  scenario  that  the  court’s  probable  finding  
that  there  is  no  contract  between  the  parties,  doesn’t  really  put  
Cherry  into  any  disadvantageous  or  detrimental  position.  Cherry  
hasn’t  already  put  forth  any  consideration  that  would  cost  her  if  
there  is  no  valid  contract.  So  in  this  case,  it  is  highly  likely  that  the  
court  would  find  no  binding  contract  between  the  parties.