Indian Contract Act, 1872<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\u201cIf the acceptance is not made in the manner describe the proposer may within a reasonable time, after the acceptance is communicated to him, insist that the acceptance must be made in the manner prescribed\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
EXAMPLE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nX offers to sell 500 quintals of wheat for \u20b9 400 per quintal to Y. He required Y to send his\nacceptance by post. Y telephones to X accepting the offer. X may insist that\nacceptance should be sent by post. In such a case telephone conversation would\nnot create a contract. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>4. ACCEPTANCE MUST FOLLOW THE CONTRACT OFFER <\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nAcceptance follows\noffer. If the acceptor is not aware of the existence of the offer and conveys his\nacceptance, no contract come into being. There must be knowledge of the offer\nbefore anyone could consent to it. An act done in ignorance of the offer cannot\nbe called an acceptance. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
CASE: LALMAN VERSUS SHUKLA VS GAURI DUTT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nThe nephew of the defendant Gauri was missing. He sent\nhis servant Lalman to find him out. After the servant had left, he announced a\nreward of \u20b951 for anybody who would trace his\nnephew. The plaintiff traced the nephew before having knowledge of the reward\nannounced by the defendant. Subsequently, the plaintiff claimed the reward when\nhe came to know about it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Held that plantiff could not recover the reward as the\noffer containing the reward was not communicated to him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>5. ACCEPTANCE MUST BE MADE WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nSometimes the time\nlimit is fixed within which the acceptance is to be given. In such a case the\nacceptance must be given within the fixed time limit. In case no time limit is\nprescribed the acceptance should be given within a reasonable time. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
CASE: RAMSGATE VICTORIA HOTEL COMPANY\nLIMITED VS. MONTEFLORE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nM applied for shares in RV hotel company limited on 8 June.\nThe company did not write to him allotting the shares until 3rd November. When he\nwas informed that shares were allotted to him, he refused to accept the shares\nwhich led to dispute. It was held that day he was not bound to accept the shares\nas the acceptance to the offer has not been made within a reasonable time.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>6. ACCEPTANCE MAY BE EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nAn acceptance which\nis expressed by written or spoken words is called expressed acceptance. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
EXAMPLE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nIf Ravi residing at Jaipur offers to sell his car to Suri\nresiding at Delhi by writing a letter and Suri accepts the offer by writing a\nletter, the acceptance is said to be expressed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The acceptance which\nis expressed by the conduct of the offeree is known as implied acceptance. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
EXAMPLE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nAt an auction sale of car, Mahesh is the highest bidder. The\nauctioneer accepts the bid by striking the hammer on the table. It is an\nimplied acceptance. Here the auctioneer conduct of striking the hammer on the\ntable shows that the auctioneer has accepted the highest bid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>7.<\/strong> SILENCE CANNOT AMOUNT TO ACCEPTANCE <\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nNo contract is formed\nif the offeree remain silent and does nothing to show that he has accepted the\noffer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Generally speaking\nthe person to whom the proposal is made need not reply. His silence cannot be\nregarded as an acceptance of the proposal. Proposal made to another cannot\nripen into an agreement merely because the offeree makes no reply even though the\nproposal states that silence will be taken to amount to acceptance. So, mental\nacceptance is no acceptance. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
CASE: BROGDON VS. METROPOLITAN RAILWAY\nCOMPANY<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nA draft agreement relating to the supply of coal was sent\nto the manager of a railway company for his acceptance. The manager wrote the\nword \u2018approved\u2019 on the agreement but by an oversight the document remained in\nhis drawer. Held there was no contract as it was only mentally accepted and\nthere was no expression of his mental determination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>8.ACCEPTANCE MUST BE GIVEN BEFORE LAPSE OF AN OFFER <\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nA valid contract can\narise only when the acceptance is made before the offer has lapsed or being\nwithdrawn. An acceptance which is made after the withdrawal of the offer is\ninvalid and does not create any legal relationship. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
EXAMPLE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nAmar offered by a letter to sell his horse to Akbar for\nrupees 2500. Subsequently, Amar withdraw his offer by a telegram which was also\nreceived by the Akbar. After reciept of this telegram, Akbar accepted the offer\nby a letter and posted the same. In this case, the acceptance is invalid as it\nwas made after the effective withdrawal of the offer.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>9. IT MAY BE GIVEN BY PERFORMING CONDITIONS OR RECEIVING CONSIDERATION <\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nAn offer may be\naccepted by performing an act which is a condition in the proposal or it may be\nthat the consideration is received for a reciprocal promise which may be\noffered with the proposal. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
CASE: V RAO VS. A RAO<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nThe lady invited her niece to stay with her in the same\nhouse and promised her to settle on her an immovable property. The niece stayed\nwith her till the time of her death. It was held that niece had performed the\ncondition of staying with the lady so she was entitled to the property.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>10. ACCEPTANCE MUST BE MADE BY THE PERSON TO WHOM THE PROPOSAL IS MADE<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nAcceptance can only\nbe given by the person to whom the offer is made. In case of specific offer,\nthe acceptance must be made by the person to whom the offer is made. While in\ncase of general offer, it may be accepted by anyone. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
CASE: POWELL V. LEE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nThe plaintiff (Powell) applied for the post of headmaster of school. The board of managers of a school passed a resolution appointing him. they did not communicate their resolution to him, but one of the managers in his individual capacity informed the plaintiff about his appointment as headmaster. later the matter was reopened, and Parker, another candidate, who had originally been rejected, was appointed in plaintiff’s place. Powell, the plaintiff thereupon sued the defendant Lee, the chairman of the board of manager for breach of contract. it was held that there was no contract between the parties because acceptance was not communicated to the plaintiff by an authorised person.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Thus, acceptance is the manifestations of the assent of the person to whom the offer is made to the terms of offer, and a binding promise comes into existence only when the terms of an offer are accepted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n