ARTICLES
‘You’ve got mail!’: Examining the postal rule in the technological age Pang Wenn Ler, University of Bristol Introduction The postal rule, long established since 1818 has always been an outlier in contract law for its simple conclusion that acceptance would be completed upon posting to the Post Office. It was seen to be a drastic departure from the fundamental principles of contract1 as it places the risk of fault on the offeror in a disproportionate way. With much discussion of whether the rule is still required and if the rule should apply to electronic mail, the postal rule is once again cast in the spotlight. This essay seeks to examine the current state of the postal rule across the jurisdictions of the United Kingdom and Singapore. Due to the many changes in the world, technology has slowly become one of our default communication methods and hence, it is critical to explore which rule would be more appropriate for contracts and transactions made through electronic means in our technological era. Historical Origins of the Postal Acceptance Rule The rule was established in a time where a rule was required and was meant to provide a guideline for certainty of contracts2 especially when post was frequently used and had many issues that were not in the control of either party. It was established in Adams v Lindsell3 where Law J established that when the offeree posts his letter of acceptance, consensus ad idem is completed, which concludes the offer and provides effect to the acceptance. This gave 1 Hill Simone W.B, Email Contracts - When is the Contract Formed? (Journal of Law, Information and Science Issue 46 2001) 2 Macdonald Elizabeth, Dispatching the dispatch rule? The postal rule, e-mail, revocation and implied terms (Web Journal of Current Legal Issues Vol 19 No 2 2013) 3 Adams v Lindsell [1818] 1 B & Ald 681
rise to the postal rule and the reasoning behind could be due to a lesser departure from the idea of consensus that has been established in contract law.4 The true reasoning behind the court’s choice of time of posting to be an indication of consensus is vague and has been debated by many scholars and criticised for its arbitrariness. After Adams, the courts returned to the issue in various cases throughout the 1800s such as in Stocken v Collin5 and Duncan v Topham6 with an acceptance of the rule but without any expressly articulated reasoning. Gardner proposed certain explanations such as the understanding of the post office as an agent for the offeror in the equation and hence acceptance can be concluded once the letter has been committed to the post office.7 Another explanation for the rule refers to the idea of business convenience where there would be no rule that would not be fair to either side, Thesiger LJ recognises that it would be more convenient to fix acceptance on posting than receipt. His judgment in the case of Household Fire and Carriage Accident Insurance Co v Grant8 provides some explanation for supporting this rule, mainly with the control that offeror has, including being able to stipulate the form of acceptance and being able to enquire the offeree on his acceptance. Understanding the postal rule in the context of business convenience has not been the most persuasive but has been cited in the argument for the rule, focusing on how the way acceptance is received can be stipulated. The explanation works well in the modern context where a wide range of communication 4 Gardner Simon, Trashing with Trollope: A Deconstruction of the Postal Rules in Contract (Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Vol 12 No 2 1992) 5 Stocken v Collin [1841] 173 ER 997 6 Duncan v Topham [1849] 137 ER 495 7 Gardner Simon, Trashing with Trollope: A Deconstruction of the Postal Rules in Contract (Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Vol 12 No 2 1992) 8 [1879] 4 Ex D 216
35