Kenanga offered to buy silverware from Hassan on February 3rd. Hassan sent a letter of acceptance on February 6th, but it was delayed in delivery. Kenanga sent a letter revoking the offer on February 13th, which reached Hassan on February 18th. However, Hassan's acceptance letter reached Kenanga on February 28th. The relevant law states acceptance is complete when communicated to the offeror. A supporting case found a contract was valid even though revocation was received after acceptance. Therefore, the conclusion is that the contract between Kenanga and Hassan is valid since acceptance was communicated before revocation.
Kenanga offered to buy silverware from Hassan on February 3rd. Hassan sent a letter of acceptance on February 6th, but it was delayed in delivery. Kenanga sent a letter revoking the offer on February 13th, which reached Hassan on February 18th. However, Hassan's acceptance letter reached Kenanga on February 28th. The relevant law states acceptance is complete when communicated to the offeror. A supporting case found a contract was valid even though revocation was received after acceptance. Therefore, the conclusion is that the contract between Kenanga and Hassan is valid since acceptance was communicated before revocation.
Kenanga offered to buy silverware from Hassan on February 3rd. Hassan sent a letter of acceptance on February 6th, but it was delayed in delivery. Kenanga sent a letter revoking the offer on February 13th, which reached Hassan on February 18th. However, Hassan's acceptance letter reached Kenanga on February 28th. The relevant law states acceptance is complete when communicated to the offeror. A supporting case found a contract was valid even though revocation was received after acceptance. Therefore, the conclusion is that the contract between Kenanga and Hassan is valid since acceptance was communicated before revocation.
Kenanga offered to buy silverware from Hassan on February 3rd. Hassan sent a letter of acceptance on February 6th, but it was delayed in delivery. Kenanga sent a letter revoking the offer on February 13th, which reached Hassan on February 18th. However, Hassan's acceptance letter reached Kenanga on February 28th. The relevant law states acceptance is complete when communicated to the offeror. A supporting case found a contract was valid even though revocation was received after acceptance. Therefore, the conclusion is that the contract between Kenanga and Hassan is valid since acceptance was communicated before revocation.
On the 3rd February, Kenanga offered to buy some silverware
from Hassan. On the 6th February, Hassan sent his letter of acceptance to Kenanga by post. Unfortunately, the letter was delayed by Pos Malaysia. The acceptance reached Kenanga on the 28th February. However, before that, Kenanga had posted her letter of revocation on the 13th February and it reached Hassan on the 18th February. ISSUES
Is the contract between Kenanga and Hassan
is valid? RELEVANT PROVISION
Acceptance Section(2) The communication of receipt is
complete- (a) against the proposer, when the communication of the acceptance has been included in the course of delivery to him, where it is outside the authority of the recipient; SUPPORT CASE
Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) 5CPD334
Fact : Defendant at Cardiff and plaintiff at New York. Defendant
makes and offer to plaintiff on 1/10 and cancels the offer on 8/10. Plaintiff accepts the offer from the defendant at 11/10. However, the plaintiff received revocation letter from the defendant on 20/10
Held: In this case the revocation notice receive by the plaintiff on
20/10. However, the contract is already valid. CONCLUSION
The contract is valid because Hassan make an
acceptance of offer on 6th February and then received the letter of revocation of offer on 18th February.