Communication of Acceptance.

If the offeree accepts the offer, must the offeror be notified? The answer depends upon the nature of the offer.

If the offeror makes an offer of a unilateral contract, communication of acceptance is ordinarily not necessary. In such a case, the offeror calls for a completed or accomplished act. If that act is performed by the offeree with knowledge of the offer, the offer is accepted without any further action by way of notifying the offeror. As a practical matter, there will eventually be some notice to the offeror because the offeree who has performed the act will ask the offeror to pay for the performance which has been rendered.

It the offer pertains to a bilateral contract, an acceptance is not effec­tive unless communicated." The acceptance must be communicated directly to the offeror or the offerer's agent.

FACTS:

Mrs. Hodgkin told her daughter and son-in-law, Brackenbury, that if they would leave their home in Missouri and come to Maine to care for her, they could have the use of her house during her life and that she would will it to them. The daughter and son-in-law moved to Maine and began taking care of the mother. Family quarrels arose, and the mother ordered them out of the house. They brought an action to determine their rights. Mrs. Hodgkin de­fended on the ground that the plaintiffs had not notified her that they would accept her offer.

DECISION:

Judgment for daughter and son-in-law. The contract offered by the mother was a uni­lateral contract. She called for the moving to Maine of the plaintiffs and their taking care of her. This they did and, by so doing, they ac­cepted the offer of the mother. The fact that they did not notify the mother of their accep­tance of the offer or did not make a counter-promise to her was immaterial since neither is required in the case of a unilateral contract. [Brackenberry v Hodgkin, 116 Maine 399, 102 A 106 (1917)]

Acceptance by Mail or Telegraph.

When the offeree sends an acceptance by mail or telegraph, questions may arise as to the right to use such means of communication and as to the time when the acceptance is effective.

(a) Right to Use Mail or Telegraph. Express directions of the offeror, prior dealings between the parties, or custom of the trade may make it clear that only one method of acceptance is proper. For example, in negotiations with respect to property of rapidly fluctuating value, such as wheat or corpo­ration stocks, an acceptance sent by mail may be too slow. When there is no indication that mail or telegraph is not a proper method, an acceptance may be made by either of those instrumentalities without regard to the manner in which the offer was made. The trend of the modern decisions supports the following provision of the Uniform Commercial Code relating to sales of personal property: "Unless otherwise unambiguously indicated by the lan­guage or circumstances, an offer to make a sales contract shall be construed as inviting acceptance in any manner and by any medium reasonable in the circumstances.

(b) When Acceptance by Mail or Telegraph Is Effective. If the offerer specifies that an acceptance shall not be effective until received, the law will respect the offerer's wish. If there is no such provision and if acceptance by letter is proper, a mailed acceptance takes effect when the acceptance is properly mailed.

FACTS:

The Thoelkes owned land. The Mor-risons mailed an offer to the Thoelkes to buy their land. The Thoelkes agreed to this offer and mailed back a contract signed by them. While this letter was in transit, the Thoelkes notified the Morrisons that their acceptance was re­voked. Were the Thoelkes bound bv a contract?

DECISION:

Yes. The acceptance was effective when mailed, and the subsequent revocation of the acceptance had no effect. [Morrison v Thoelke (Fla App) 155 So2d 889 (1963)]

The letter must be properly addressed to the offerer, and any other precaution that is ordinarily observed to insure safe transmission must be taken. If it is not mailed in this manner, the acceptance does not take effect when mailed, but only when received by the offerer.

The rule that a properly mailed acceptance takes effect at the time it is mailed is applied strictly. The rule applies even though the acceptance letter never reaches the offerer.

An acceptance sent by telegraph takes effect at the time that the mes­sage is handed to the clerk at the telegraph office, unless the offerer specifies otherwise or unless custom or prior dealings indicate that acceptance by telegraph is improper.

(c) Proof of Acceptance by Mail or Telegraph. How can the time of mailing be established, or even the fact of mailing in the case of a destroyed or lost letter? A similar problem arises in the case of a telegraphic acceptance. In either case, the problem is not one of law but one of fact: a question of proving the case to the jury. The offerer may testify in court that an accep­tance was never received or that an acceptance was sent after the offer had been revoked. The offeree may then testify that the acceptance letter was mailed at a particular time and place. The offeree's case will be strengthened if postal receipts for the mailing and delivery of a letter sent to the offeror can be produced, although these of course do not establish the contents of the letter. Ultimately, the case goes to the jury, or to the judge, if a jury trial has been waived, to determine whether the acceptance was made at a certain time and place as claimed by the offeree.