In UBA v. Tejumola and Sons, 1988, the Appellant asked the respondent for a lease agreement, but was “subject to the contract”. Both parties agreed, but later the complainant withdrew from the agreement. The defendant brought an action for breach of contract and was successful in the High Court. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which overturned the Supreme Court`s decision, noting that the existence of the phrase “subject to contract” is a conditional assumption, so both parties are still in the negotiation phase. Therefore, neither party is bound by any legal obligation and is free to withdraw from the contract. In Carlil v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. In 1893, the Court ruled that while an offer is generally addressed to the general public, anyone who has knowledge of the offer can come forward and accept the offer by completing what is necessary for the offer.
Meeting the requirements of a general offer would be a valid acceptance of that offer. If an offer is made and the recipient accepts the offer, but it does not create any legal obligation for both parties to keep the promise, this is an invalid acceptance. Ineffective acceptance results in the nullity of the entire contract. There are the following ways in which an acceptance becomes an invalid acceptance: Although signing a contract is a common way to accept an offer, there are various other types of acceptance. For example, if you offer a contractor to cancel your home for a certain amount of money and make an upfront payment, receiving the prepayment itself is equivalent to an acceptance by the contractor. It must also be expressed in a prescribed manner. If no such prescribed manner is described, it must be expressed in the usual and reasonable manner, that is, as would be the case in the ordinary course of business. Implicit acceptance can also be given by behavior, action, etc.
Section 8 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 provides that acceptance by the conduct or actions of the promisor is acceptable. Therefore, if a person performs certain actions that communicate that he has accepted the offer, such tacit acceptance is permitted. So if A agrees to buy 100 bales of hay from B for 1000/- and B transfers the goods, his actions imply that he has accepted the offer. Filzhaus v. Bindley, 1862: In this case, Felthouse, who is the plaintiff, had a discussion with his nephew about the purchase of his horse. Later, he sent a letter to his nephew explaining that if Mr. Bindley no longer responds to the letter, he will assume that he has accepted the offer and that the horse will belong to Felthouse. Mr. Bindley did not respond to the letter because he was busy. Later, Mr. Bindley sold his horse to someone else and Felthouse felt hurt and filed a conversion lawsuit against Mr.
Bindley. The court ruled that there was no contract between Felthouse and Mr. Felthouse. Bindley as silence cannot be a form of acceptance. The court held that the offer to be accepted must be clearly communicated and, since Mr Bindley had not replied to the letter in the present case, his silence could not be regarded as an acceptance. Therefore, there was no contract between Felthouse and Mr. Bindley. Section 2(b) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines an acceptance as follows: “If the person to whom the proposal is submitted indicates his consent, it is said that the proposal will be accepted, to a promise.” Upon acceptance of the proposal, the applicant is designated as a promisor/supplier and the acceptor is called the recipient of the promise/target – acceptance can be made either by words (or) by behavior. If a time limit is specified, acceptance must be made within that period. Section 2(b) of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872 defines adoption as follows: If a person to whom the proposal is submitted gives consent, it is stated that the proposal will be accepted. A proposal, if adopted, becomes a promise. According to Sir William Anson, acceptance is for an offer, which is a light match for a gunpowder train.
It produces something that cannot be recalled or undone. But the powder may have subsided by the time it became wet, or the man who put the train down may have removed it before putting a lit match on it.