A court of law usually enforces the contract as long the offeree proves that he posted the letter. A relevant case studied is that of:-
For the case of Bella, the letter he posted on 25th September 2006, but arrived on 30th September 2006, the contract to purchase the text book became binding immediately he sent the letter of acceptance. It does not matter that the letter was delayed by the post office. On the issue that since the recommended textbook for the course has changed, and Bella does not wish to buy the textbook, this would not apply. Acceptance one made, it cannot be revoked. The moment Bella expressed his acceptance of an offer, that very moment the contract is concluded, and it does not matter whether the acceptance is by word of mouth or even by writing. Another relevant case studied is that of:-
G, applied for the purchase of shares in the plaintiff's company. The offer was accepted promptly, and the company secretary made out a letter of allotment in favour of the defendant. It was held that the contract was complete on posting, and the defendant was liable for the shares.
On the case of Chu who accepted Arun's offer by telephone, his contract became complete when the acceptance was heard by Arun on 30th September 2006. According to the law of contract, there is an exception to the communication of acceptance. A contact is complete only when acceptance is actually communicated to the offeror. But a contract made by telephone is complete only when the acceptance is heard by the offeror. For this case, Chu should not revoke the acceptance on the basis that the book will not be useful since it is not recommended text book in his course. An acceptance once made, it cannot be revoked.
On the case of Dilma, who accepted the offer by email sent on 27th September 2006 but read by Arun on 28th September 2006, the contract became binding immediately the email of