Contracts rejecting acceptance to buy product

edgal

I put an advert up selling an ipad for a really cheap price and said that the first person to email me would get it but I then decided I didn't want to anymore because a friend offered me a better price for it.
So I sold it to my friend but after I noticed that I got an email from the person accepting the offer, but because I didn't see it until after I sold it does that mean it wasn't sufficiently communicated to me or does it still count since I received it ?

I explained the situation to the person who emailed me but they said they had accepted it before I sold it so I would be legally obliged to sell it to him...

I don't want any hassle so I'll just refund my friend and sell it to the e-mailer, but are they right in what they're saying ?

Finnbar01

edgal wrote: »

I put an advert up selling an ipad for a really cheap price and said that the first person to email me would get it but I then decided I didn't want to anymore because a friend offered me a better price for it.
So I sold it to my friend but after I noticed that I got an email from the person accepting the offer, but because I didn't see it until after I sold it does that mean it wasn't sufficiently communicated to me or does it still count since I received it ?

I explained the situation to the person who emailed me but they said they had accepted it before I sold it so I would be legally obliged to sell it to him...

I don't want any hassle so I'll just refund my friend and sell it to the e-mailer, but are they right in what they're saying ?

But the ipad is not yours anymore. It's your friends.

edgal

Finnbar01 wrote: »

But the ipad is not yours anymore. It's your friends.

He'll refund me if the e-mailer actually is correct in what he's saying, that I am liable to him for selling the ipad after he accepted the offer via being the first person to email me.

Therefore my question is simply was his acceptance valid when it was instantly mailed to my email address or would it only be valid from once I had read the email.
As in between the latter and former I sold the ipad. So at what point did we contract ?

The Big Red Button

No consideration (i.e. money) was exchanged, therefore no valid contract was formed.

For a valid contract, you need four things - offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal relations. No consideration => No contract.

imitation

edgal wrote: »

He'll refund me if the e-mailer actually is correct in what he's saying, that I am liable to him for selling the ipad after he accepted the offer via being the first person to email me.

Therefore my question is simply was his acceptance valid when it was instantly mailed to my email address or would it only be valid from once I had read the email.
As in between the latter and former I sold the ipad. So at what point did we contract ?

How does he know he was the first to email you ? I doubt it would stand up in a court of law.

edgal

chatterpillar wrote: »

No consideration (i.e. money) was exchanged, therefore no valid contract was formed.

For a valid contract, you need four things - offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal relations. No consideration => No contract.

Thanks, I was also researching about it and came across some postal rule but is that only for post box letters then ? and would they have to give money as well for acceptance of offer to form a legal contract too ?

edgal

imitation wrote: »

How does he know he was the first to email you ? I doubt it would stand up in a court of law.

I told him when I was explaining why I couldn't sell it to him. Maybe I shouldn't have but didn't know about what he then said in his email back to me...

The Big Red Button

edgal wrote: »

Thanks, I was also researching about it and came across some postal rule but is that only for post box letters then ? and would they have to give money as well for acceptance of offer to form a legal contract too ?

I think the postal rule applies for electronic communication too - not 100% sure on that though.

Either way, you'd still need consideration for it to be valid.

collie0708

No he is just chancing his arm I sell this online regularly and buyers/sellers often let people down. Legally they don't have a leg to stand on.

Pat Mustard

For a contract, we need:
1. Offer.
2. Acceptance.
3. Consideration.
4. Intention to create legal relations.

Do we have all of these elements?

Was there an offer by the OP, or is an advertisement just an invitation to treat? Was the proposed purchaser's proposed attempted acceptance actually an offer, which was not accepted by the OP?

edgal

The Mustard wrote: »

For a contract, we need:
1. Offer.
2. Acceptance.
3. Consideration.
4. Intention to create legal relations.

Do we have all of these elements?

Was there an offer by the OP, or is an advertisement just an invitation to treat? Was the proposed purchaser's proposed attempted acceptance not actually an offer, which was not accepted by the OP?

I'm pretty sure I did offer to sell it. But since the e-mailer didn't actually pay me anything he must be in the wrong in what he's saying.. So without your 3rd point the fact that 1,2,4 were present is irrelevant then ?

What's the significance of a postal rule if it only applies with consideration, like would it really matter that acceptance is valid when sent not received if in general no money would be given at those points..

Also would it be communicated acceptance when I've read his email or when it arrived in my inbox ?

valleyoftheunos

chatterpillar wrote: »

No consideration (i.e. money) was exchanged, therefore no valid contract was formed.

For a valid contract, you need four things - offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal relations. No consideration => No contract.

You have misunderstood consideration here, it is not necessary to have paid money to make a contract enforceable. Here the promise to pay money is valid consideration to make the contract enforceable.

The Mustard wrote: »

For a contract, we need:
1. Offer.
2. Acceptance.
3. Consideration.
4. Intention to create legal relations.

Do we have all of these elements?

Was there an offer by the OP, or is an advertisement just an invitation to treat? Was the proposed purchaser's proposed attempted acceptance not actually an offer, which was not accepted by the OP?

It depends on the wording of the Ad, it may be that it was certain enough to be considered a unilateral contract, the OP stated that the first person to email him would get the ipad, I'm pretty sure there is a case on this that said it was.

If the ad can be construed as an actual offer then the issue of the postal rule must be considered, the cases aren't totally clear but when read with the electronic contracts legislation it would seem that once an email has arrived in the recipient's system and is available to read, the acceptance is deemed to have been received and is thus binding.

OP I hope this helps with your Contract Law Homework:D

Pat Mustard

edgal wrote: »

I'm pretty sure I did offer to sell it. But since the e-mailer didn't actually pay me anything he must be in the wrong in what he's saying.. So without your 3rd point the fact that 1,2,4 were present is irrelevant then ?

What's the significance of a postal rule if it only applies with consideration, like would it really matter that acceptance is valid when sent not received if in general no money would be given at those points..

Also would it be communicated acceptance when I've read his email or when it arrived in my inbox ?

I think that we are working blind without sight of the ad and subsequent correspondence. Can those be posted up or linked?

Tom Young

Homework ...

valleyoftheunos

Tom Young wrote: »

Homework ...

Either that or two law students buying and selling an ipad

Procrastastudy

Tom beat me too it... thinly veiled homework thread. Fair play for being better thought out than my usual efforts!

OP Does the postal rule apply to e-commerce transactions and email? :eek:

Tom Young

Entores ...

Procrastastudy

Tom Young wrote: »

Entores ...

Sorry I missed that I think an aircraft went overhead.

Tom Young

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Sorry I missed that I think an aircraft went overhead.

It's a case name.

valleyoftheunos

Email is not instantaneous so I don't think Entores applies... I'm not sure the courts have made their minds up about email.

Procrastastudy

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Email is not instantaneous so I don't think Entores applies... I'm not sure the courts have made their minds up about email.

There seems to be some debate that the postal rule applies. Not withstanding Denning and aircraft. I think the exam correct answer is to argue if it was recived in office hours one might apply entores notwithstanding the possibility of the postal rule.