To demonstrate the point, take a simple share purchase via email. In general, the price paid for shares is determined “at the time of conclusion of the contract”. By applying the basic principles of contract law, this means the time of adoption. The buyer sends his offer by e-mail to buy shares, and the seller sends an e-mail to his acceptance of the offer. What happens if the price of the shares in question changes radically between the sending of an acceptance and the actual receipt by the offeror? The impact on the price to be paid for the shares will be significant, depending on whether the contract is concluded at the time of sending the acceptance or at the time of receipt of the acceptance. Here too, it is demonstrated how important it is to determine the exact time of the conclusion of the contract. When it comes to negotiating and concluding a contract via email, it is not difficult to imagine global scenarios in which the exact identification of the exact time of contract formation would be crucial. From the negotiation of futures contracts to a simple purchase on the Internet, the determination of the time of acceptance and therefore of the formation can have a direct impact on the price paid or, more generally, on the contractual rights and obligations of the parties. The booking rule only applies to acceptance. Other contract letters (such as . B withdrawal of the offer) take effect only after delivery of the letter, as in Stevenson, Jacques & Co v. McLean (1880) 5 QBD 346.
As a result, it is possible that a letter of acceptance will be published after the publication of a letter of withdrawal of the offer, but before its delivery, and the acceptance will be complete at the time of publication of the letter of acceptance – the withdrawal of the supplier would be ineffective. Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelssellschaft mbH (United Kingdom House of Lords, 1983)(Postal regulations do not apply to telex – acceptance when and where telex is received) In some cases, it is not easy to divide the behaviour of the parties into “offer” and “acceptance”. This is particularly the case when documents often come and go between the parties in contract negotiations. This is called the “battle of forms” and, in such a case, when it turns out that the parties have reached an agreement, although the offer and acceptance are not clearly recognizable, the courts will examine the circumstances of the individual case to determine whether an actual agreement has been reached and, if so, under what conditions. Again, this underscores the importance of distinguishing the exact moment of acceptance. In the case of contracts concluded by e-mail, it is not clear whether acceptance takes place at the time of sending the acceptance by the recipient of the destination or at the time of receipt by the tenderer. The legal consequences are enormous. Let us take as an example a sale of goods in which the contract is concluded by e-mail. If we assume that the offer is made by the buyer and the acceptance is made by the seller, sending the seller`s acceptance is the decisive transaction. If acceptance is to take place at the time of dispatch of receipt, the place of jurisdiction of the buyer is the place of competent jurisdiction, while the opposite is the case if we come to the conclusion that it is the actual receipt that justifies the contract. The rules of postal contracts (postal rules) are as follows: The UNCITRAL rules for the time of sending and receiving are: The legal rule that if an offer of contract is deemed to be accepted by mail, the time and place where the acceptance is published is the time and place where the contract was concluded.
The rule does not apply if the tenderer does not intend the contract to become binding until acceptance is received. As mentioned above, a contract is concluded at the moment the acceptance takes place. This article focuses on two of the following effects: that the time and place of acceptance are therefore the time and place of conclusion of the contract (also known as questions when and where). In the United States, the majority rule is that the mailbox rule does not apply to option contracts. By default, an option contract is accepted when the bidder receives acceptance, not when the target recipient sends it. However, since the California Civil Code applies the mailbox rule to all contracts, California follows the minority rule, according to which the mailbox rule also applies to option contracts.  The display rule does not apply to option contracts or irrevocable offers for which acceptance is always effective only after receipt. This is due to the fact that the target recipient no longer needs protection against subsequent revocation of the offer. For the purposes of Commonwealth law, the law regulates the time of dispatch (§§ 14 paras.
1 and 2) and the time of receipt (§ 14 paras. 3 and 4) of electronic communications. Since the crucial moment in the formation of contracts is acceptance and the general rule of communication requires the actual communication of this hypothesis (and we maintain that this rule applies to the acceptance of e-mails), the conditions of receipt are the most relevant to our purposes. The date of receipt is deemed to have taken place `when the electronic communication enters the information system [designated by the addressee]` (Article 14(3)). The core of the section means that in the case of an email, receipt would occur when the message enters the recipient`s email mailbox. Therefore, according to the law, the question of when a communication is received is answered in the form of an acknowledgment of receipt in the recipient`s mailbox.  In addition to UCITA, the question of when a contract is entered into by e-mail is entirely in the hands of the common law, with the possibility that the rule of acceptance of obsolete mail may be applied to this mode of communication. To answer this question, the scenario of e-mail contracts must be considered in the context of the basic principles of contract formation.  For an in-depth discussion of why the mail acceptance rule should not be applied to email, see: Simone WB Hill, “Flogging A Dead Horse – the postal acceptance rule and email,” (2001) 17 Journal of Contract Law 151. Some of the ideas presented in this document are discussed in more detail and in more detail in this publication.
Note that there are now special rules that apply to electronic transactions. See e.B. Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth), Part 2, Section 3. For those reasons, it is argued that the mail acceptance rule should not apply to contracts concluded by e-mail.  The amendment extends this time so that a postal item must arrive at the recipient on the seventh business day following shipment. The rationale suggests that the proposed change would reflect Australia Post`s current operational delivery times. If the parties are distant from each other and an offer is sent by mail, it is generally accepted in that country [United States] that the response accepting the offer can be sent by the same means, and if it is sent, the contract is concluded when the acceptance is sent. and beyond the control of the acceptor; the theory is that when you make an offer through the post office, he approves the acceptance which is made by the same means, his agent to get his acceptance; that the acceptance, when sent, is then communicated constructively to the supplier. The justification for the rule is therefore as follows: the type of postal communication refers to a separation of the parties according to time and distance. When a party sends a communication by mail, there is a delay between sending and receiving.
How is the sender supposed to know that their communication has been received? If each party felt that it was not bound by its acceptance of the terms of the contract until it had received confirmation of receipt from the other party, then the situation could continue “indefinitely”. It was assumed that “no contract would ever be concluded by mail” unless a legal decision was made about it.  If acceptance performs the requested action (which Carlill suggests), a provider may revoke after the service begins, but before it is completed, applying the general rule. However, in Daulia v. Four Millbank, it was proposed that, in the case of offers of unilateral contracts, the offer should be accepted and that a contract should be concluded when a clear start to the act had taken place.  See e.B. the delay in receiving an acceptance due to the indication of an incorrect address by a supplier: Re Imperial Land Co of Marseilles (Townsend`s Case) (1871) LR 13 Eq 148. If legal negotiations are conducted by e-mail, when should the contract be concluded? Is it when the email is sent by the provider? Or when it arrives in the recipient/provider`s mailbox? Or if the recipient/supplier reads the acceptance? The display rule (or mailbox rule in the United States, also known as the “mailing rule” or “deposit acceptance rule”) is an exception to the general rule of contract law in common law countries that acceptance of an offer takes place when it is communicated. .