ECONOMICS,COMMERCE AND MANAGEMENT: ESSENTIALS OF ACCEPTANCE BUSINESS LAW

Thursday, February 28, 2019

Ø CA FOUNDATION BUSINESS LAW
ACCEPTANCE
ESSENTIALS OF ACCEPTANCE
MEANING

WHEN THE PERSON TO WHOM THE PROPOSAL IS MADE SIGNIFIES HIS ASSENT, IT IS AN ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROPOSAL.
SECTION 2 (b) AN ACCEPTED PROPOSAL IS CALLED A PROMISE OR AN AGREEMENT.
ACCEPTANCE MAY BE EXPRESS WHEN IT IS MADE BY SPOKEN WORDS OR WRITTEN
IMPLIED: IF IT IS ACCEPTED BY THE CONDUCT
WHO CAN ACCEPT :- IT MEANS THAT THE PERSON TO WHOM THE OFFER IS MADE CAN ALONE ACCEPT IT.
BUT WHEN IT IS MADE TO WORLD AT LARGE FOR EXAMPLE BY GIVING ADVERTISEMENT IN THE NEWSPAPER IN SUCH A CASE ONLY PERSON OR PERSON WITH NOTICE OF THE OFFER CAN COME FORWARD AND ACCEPT THE OFFER
THE LEADING CASE :- BOULTON V JONES
D WAS HAVING ACCOUNT WITH FIRM A BUT NOW FIRM WAS TAKE OVER BY B.
D SENT AN OFFER TO OLD FIRM A BUT IT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE B AND GOODS SENT TO D
B SUED D FOR THE PRICE BUT COURT HELD NO CONTRACT AS THE OFFER WAS SENT TO A NOT TO B

ACCEPTANCE MUST BE ABSOLUTE AND UNCONDITIONAL :- ACCEPTANCE MUST BE UNCONDITIONAL AND UNQUALIFIED. THE ACCEPTOR MUST COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF OFFER.

LEADING CASE :- NEELE V MRRITT
M OFFERED TO SELL LAND AT $ 280 AND N ACCEPTED THE OFFER AND ENCLOSED $30 AND REST IN MONTHLY INSTALLMENT OF $50. ACCEPTANCE WAS CONDITIONAL

ACCEPTANCE MUST BE COMMUNICATED TO THE OFFEROR :- IT MUST BE COMMUNICATED TO THE OFFEROR HIMSELF. WHERE A PERSON ACCEPTS AN OFFER BUT FAILS TO POST THE LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE IS NOT VALID.

THE LEADING CASE IS :-
POWEL V LEE:-THE BOARD OF MANAGER OF A SCHOOL RESOLVED TO APPOINT A AS THE HEAD MASTER.ONE OF THE BOARD OF MANAGER INFORMED A ABOUT HIM. BUT LATER ON SOME OTHER PERSON WAS KEPT. IT WAS HELD NO FORMAL COMMUNICATION OF THE APPOINTMENT.

FELTHOUSE V BINDLEY:-
F OFFERED TO HIS NEPHEW ‘S HORSE AT POUND 30-15S AND SAID IF I HEAR NO MORE THE HORSE IS MINE BUT NEPHEW DID NOT REPLY AND HE TOLD HIS AUCTIONEER NOT TO SELL BUT AUCTIONEER SOLD IT BY MISTAKE.

ACCEPTANCE MUST BE MADE WITH IN A REASONABLE TIME :- ACCEPTANCE MUST BE MADE WITH IN TIME ALLOWED BY OFFEROR AND IF NO TIME IS SPECIFIED, IT MUST BE MADE WITH IN A REASONABLE TIME.

MUST BE ACCORDING TO THE MODE PRESCRIBED:- HAS TO BE MADE IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED OR INDICATED BY THE OFFEROR

SURENDRA NATH V KEDAR NATH: OFFER WAS MADE TO B BY A TO SELL HIS HOUSE FOR 1000. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED WRITE TO F AT HIS ADDRESS. INSTEAD B SENT HIS AGENT TO MEET PERSONALLY F. HERE THERE WAS NO VIOLATION.

THE ACCEPTOR MUST BE AWARE OF THE PROPOSAL AT THE TIME OF OFFER :- THE LEADING CASE IS LALMAN SHUKLA V GAURI DUTT

ACCEPTANCE MUST BE GIVEN BEFORE THE OFFER OF LAPSE OR BEFORE THE OFFER IS REVOKED: UNION OF INDIA VS GOPAL CHANDRA

A PROSPECTIVE RESIGNATION TO QUIT POST IS AN OFFER AND IT CAN BE WITHDRAWN BEFORE THE RESIGNATION IS ACCEPTED BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY,

ACCEPTANCE CANNOT BE IMPLIED FROM SILENCE: NO CONTRACT IS FORMED IF THE OFFEREE REMAINS SILENT

LEADING CASE :- BROGDON V METROPOLITAN
DRAFT AGREEMENT FOR THE SUPPLY OF COAL WAS SENT TO THE MANAGER OF A RAILWAY COMPANY FOR ACCEPTANCE. THE MANAGER WROTE ON THE AGREEMENT ACCEPTED BUT NEVER POSTED. NO CONTRACT

EFFECT OF SILENCE ON THE ACCEPTANCE
THE FOLLOWING CASE SILENCE MAY BE INDICATIVE OF ASSENT TO THE PROPOSAL

WHERE THE OFFEREE HAVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO REJECT THE OFFERED GOODS TAKES THE BENEFIT OF THEM ,IT WILL AMOUNT TO ACCEPTANCE . THE LEADING CASE KASHI PRASAD V SAJJADI BEGAUM: LANDLORD SENT THE NOTICE OF ENHANCEMENT OF THE NOTICE BUT TENANT CONTINUED TO OCCUPY THE PREMISES.
WHERE BECAUSE OF PREVIOUS DEALINGS THE OFFEREE HAS GIVEN THE PROPOSER REASON TO UNDERSTAND THAT SILENCE WAS INTENDED BY THE OFFEREE AS A MANIFESTATION OF ASSENT AND THE OFFEROR DOES SO UNDERSTAND

WHERE AN OFFER OR ACCEPTANCE IS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY CERTAIN PERSON
NO CONTRACT WILL ARISE TILL THE FORMAL CONSENT OF SUCH PERSON HAS BEEN OBTAINED

ECONOMICS,COMMERCE AND MANAGEMENT