2 contracts entered?

This question revolves around the postal rule and time lapse

Postal rule - once the offer has been communicated to the offeree and the offeree decides to accept the offer, the acceptance takes place as soon as the letter has been posted - see byrne v van tienhoven 1880

Time lapse - an offer will usually lapse after a fixed period of time or a reasonable length of time. what is defined as reasonable will depend on the actual subject matter i.e. you cant keep an offer of tomatoes open for months on end as they will rot - see ramsgate victoria hotel v montifiore 1866 & financings ltd v stimson 1962

However, Routledge v Grant it was held a promise to keep the offer open without consideration for a period of time will not be binding.

The law is not set in stone and usually there is always both sides to argue. For me, I would argue that the fact Chris was prepared to wait then he has kept the offer open for at least 2 weeks. although the postal rule would normally apply as the 2 week period had not lapsed, and therefore Bradley has 2 weeks from monday to respond to the offer, after that the offer has lapsed and Chris is able to accept other offers. as a result, since the time period had not lapsed the offer would be binding towards Bradley rather than Jason.


Note: regarding emails, although they are an instantaneous mode if the postal rule applied, the contract would come into force when Bradley hit the send button. However, the question is when the message is recieved - is it received when the email is seet through the server or is it when the email is actually read by the recipient? given the practical problems that could arise it seems acceptable that the contract will not come into force until the email is read by the recipient rather than when it is sent.

Sorry, Routledge v Grant comes under revocation of an offer - time lapses is a different form of an offer expiring. As previously mentioned, there is no real right or wrong answer in law, providing that you can argue and provide sufficient reasoning, both answers may be correct.

The fact that he had left a voicemail and then agreed to wait after speaking to Bradley's wife, I would fin sufficient to bind Chris on keeping the offer open for 2 weeks - had the email that was sent read on the Tuesday then the offer may have lapsed and therefore the contract would be binding with Jason

Bradley has 14 days to decide whether or not he wants to purchase the bike, and that include anytime of the day on monday. when he returns he immediately states he wants the bike - so the offer would have to be kept open for Bradely until the close of play Monday, before he could sell to whoever he wants. In addition, Chris did not inform Bradley that he was revoking the offer (this is where Routledge v Grant comes in), an had time to do so.

You say in your answer above what Chris could have done, but this is not what is in the facts so you can only advise the parties on the facts of the case - could, should or would is not enough to persuade the court. Always stick to the facts of the case, you could however say that, Had Chris contacted Bradley to revoke the offer before opening the email, Jason would be bound to the contract.

So in a simple answer, Chris agreed to keep the offer open for 14days / 2 weeks, even though he read Jason's letter, failed to contact Bradley about revoking the original offer. As a result of this, as soon as the email had been read by Chris the contract was binding - regardless of the letter by Jason. The only way Jason would be bound is if the time period had lapsed i.e. no response from Bradley after Monday.

Although Jason says he will buy at the price, you could argue that he has asked a question in addition which has not been answered and could be argued that his intention to be bound would be on the basis of whether or not the disc wheels were included and merely an inquisitive reply.

No contract exists with Jason as the offer was open to Bradley for 2 weeks and the contract was bound upon reading the email. The only contract existing is with Bradley and as far as remedies for Jason, I'm certain there are none available as there is no contract.

just to note, when answering scenario questions its always best to identify the problem and define, explain the relevant case law and then apply it to the scenario at hand - basic elements of a contract is an offer, an acceptance and the intention to be legally bound.

depending on the situation, you cannot just offer to anyone. In this case, Chris offered the bike to Bradley first and decided to keep the offer open to him for 2 weeks. That means you must keep the offer open to the person for that period of time before accepting another persons offer.

If for example, Chris read the email Monday morning and then sold the bike to Jason, Bradley could sue Chris for breach of contract as the contract would be binding. Unfortunately there is no contract binding between Chris and Jason as Chris must keep the offer open to Bradley for 2 weeks and since Bradley accepted the offer, any offer made to Jason is void.

examples of time lapse
Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montifiore 1866
financings ltd v stimson 1962 are

OR
you could also read Goldsbrough Mort v Quinn (1910) - Note, This is an Australian case and therefore has no binding on UK courts however it can be used as persuasive authority