Acceptance in contract law

Acceptance can be said to be the assent or the approval of an offer. The rules guiding acceptance are stated out in the case of INNIH V FERADO.

The rules are five in number and they are:

1). Acceptance must be plain

2). Acceptance must be unequivocal

3). Acceptance must be unconditional

4). Acceptance must be without variation

5). Acceptance must be well communicated.

1). Acceptance must be plain: When accepting an offer, it must be 100% clear that an acceptance has taken place. If not the acceptance will not be valid. This can be seen in the case of FELTHOUSE V BINDLEY. where the court held that since there was no plain acceptance, there was no valid contract.

2). Acceptance must be unequivocal: This means that when an offer is accepted, it must be accepted in such a way that there is no room for doubt in offeror's mind as to whether the offer has been accepted or not.

3). Acceptance must be unconditional: When accepting an offer, there should be no condition attached to the acceptance. Basically, the best way to accept an offer is to accept it the way it comes. This can be seen in the case of ODUFUNADE V OSOSAMI. Where it was held that since a condition was attached to the acceptance that took place, there was no valid contract.

4). Acceptance must be without variation: Variation in contract simply means a counter offer, so when accepting an offer, the best thing is that no counter offer should take place.

5). Acceptance must be well communicated: When accepting an offer, you must be sure that the other party is aware of the fact that an acceptance has taken place. If this is not done, then there is no valid contract. This can be seen in the case of ACB V OBASEKI. Where the court held that since the acceptance was not well communicated, then the plaintiff was not entitled to the properties.

Under this communication of acceptance, there are ways in which an acceptance must be communicated. If the offeror specifically states out a way in which the offer is to be accepted, it must be followed, otherwise there would be no valid contract. This can be seen in the case of ELIASON V HENSHAW. Where the offeror claimed that the offer must be accepted by wagon and the offeree accepted the offer through post, the court held that the acceptance was not valid.

If the offeror did not specifically state out a way in which the offer is to be accepted, the offer can be accepted in any way but the best thing is to accept the offer in the way it was made and this can be seen in the case of ENTORES V MILES FAR EAST.Where the plaintiff in London made an offer by telex to the defendant in Amsterdam and the defendant accepted the offer by telex.

Next, we have acceptance by post.

This has to do with posting of letters in the post office in order to accept an offer. The rules guiding acceptance by post claims that the moment the letter of acceptance is posted, then a contract has taken place. This can be seen in the case of ADAMS V LINDSELL. Where the court held that there was a valid contract since the letter of acceptance has been posted. Similar decision was upheld in the case of HOUSEHOLD FIRE INSURANCE CO. LTD V GRANT.

We have exceptions to the rule and they are:

1). If the offeror expressly states out that acceptance by post will be binding not the moment it was posted but the moment it is received and this can be seen in the case of HOLWELL SECURITIES CO. LTD V HUGHES.

2). If the letter is not appropriately posted as seen in the case of RELONDON V NORTHERN BANK EXPERTE JONES.

3). If it will lead to a form of manifest injustice.