contract law problems~~

用戶153287

2008-12-05 7:38 am

if X makes an advertisement that X will pay for people who find his lost
watch, Y have returned the watch to X, but Y does not know about the
notice (offer), will there be any contractual relationship between X and Y??

Also, does postal rule apply to instantaneous methods, like telex, voice
message and e-mail?? is it true that when the offeree accepts the offer and
communicate to the offeror by instantaneous methods, the contract will be
valid only if the offeror receives the message of the offeree?

thanks a lot!!

更新1:

but does past consideration appear in this case? Past consideration apply in the situation that when an act is done voluntarily and subsequently an agreement is made to perform that act in return for a promise.

更新2:

However, in this case, the agreement is not subsequently made, as the advertisement is posted by X before Y have returned the watch. Also, Y is acting on what the offer (Aadverisement) says, and therefore it is not a past consideration. Am i wrong?

更新3:

P.S. Y does not know about the offer but still acting on what the offer says, is there any acceptance of Y here?? thanks!!

更新4:

P.S. Y does not know about the offer but still acting on what the offer says, is there any acceptance of Y here?? thanks!!ise.

回答 (1)

Kenzzz_ch

2008-12-05 8:47 am

✔ 最佳答案

I can answer you definitely that there is no contractual relationship between X and Y since there is no consideration.

There is no consideration since past consideration is not good consideration.This is because the consideration was already completed before Y was aware of the promise, so that Y have not given anything new in return for the promise.

The leading case regarding this issue is Eastwood v Kenyon(1840) 11 A&E 438. The guardian of a young girl raised a loan to educate the girl. After her marriage, her husband promised to pay off the loan but eventually did not do so. It was held the guardian was unable to enforce this promise since the consideration which he had provided, which was bringing up and financing the girl, was past.

The postal rule does not apply to instantaneous methods of communication like telex, voice message and e-mail. Entores v Miles Far East Corporation held that the postal rulewas confined to non-instantaneous forms of communication and that it does not apply to telex. Forinstantaneous communication, the rule does not apply.

Your proposition that when the offeree accepts the offer and
communicate to the offeror by instantaneous methods, the contract will be
valid only if the offeror receives the message of the offeree, is entirely correct.

2008-12-09 22:54:44 補充：
Past consideration is evident although not in the conventional sense. When Y learned about the offer, consideration has already lapsed

2008-12-09 22:57:50 補充：
Of course, there is also another way to tackle the problem.In R v Clarke, it was held that a person who, in ignorance of the offer, performs the act requested by the offeror is not entitled to sue.

👍 0 👎 0