📖 Read the passage, then answer the questions below
A contract is formed only once an offer has been validly accepted, and the general rule is that acceptance must actually be communicated to the offeror before a binding contract comes into existence; an acceptance that has not yet reached the offeror generally creates no contract at all. The postal rule is a specific, historical exception to this general rule, developed for communication by post, under which acceptance is treated as complete, and the contract binding, from the moment a properly addressed and stamped letter of acceptance is posted, rather than from the moment it is actually received by the offeror.
The postal rule applies only where post is a reasonable and contemplated method of communication between the parties, given the manner in which the offer itself was made or the ordinary course of dealing between them; it does not apply where the offeror has expressly required that acceptance actually be received to be effective, or has stipulated some other specific method of communication that excludes reliance on the postal rule. Where the offeror has made clear that only actual receipt of acceptance will bind the contract, the general rule requiring actual communication applies instead, and the postal rule has no application regardless of when a letter of acceptance happens to be posted.
The postal rule does not extend to instantaneous or near-instantaneous methods of communication, such as a telephone call, or the various forms of instant electronic communication in modern use, since these methods make actual, real-time communication between the parties genuinely practical, unlike the historical delay inherent in postal communication; for such instantaneous methods, the general rule applies, and a contract is formed only once the acceptance actually reaches, and comes to the notice of, the offeror.
Where the postal rule does apply, the contract becomes binding at the moment of posting a properly addressed and stamped acceptance, even if that letter is subsequently delayed in the post, or even if it is lost entirely and never actually reaches the offeror at all, since the rule fixes the moment of contract formation at posting rather than at receipt.
Question 1
A offers to sell goods to B by post. B posts a properly addressed and stamped acceptance, which is delayed and arrives a full week later than expected, though it does eventually arrive. A argues no contract was ever formed because of this unusual delay. Is A correct?
Question 2
Where an offeree uses an instantaneous method of communication, such as an instant electronic message, to accept an offer, what is the correct rule for determining when the resulting contract is formed, according to the passage?
Question 3
Which of the following best explains why the postal rule does not apply where the offeror has expressly required actual receipt of acceptance, according to the passage?
Question 4
A makes an offer to B, and both parties have historically corresponded exclusively by post throughout their ongoing business relationship, making post a reasonable and contemplated method of communication between them. B posts a properly addressed and stamped acceptance. Before this letter arrives, A changes his mind and sends B a message withdrawing the offer, which reaches B after B has already posted the acceptance. Is a binding contract formed despite A's later attempt to withdraw?
Question 5
A offers to sell equipment to B by post, and B posts a properly addressed, stamped letter of acceptance under circumstances where post is a reasonable, contemplated method between them. The letter is completely lost and never arrives; A never learns that B accepted at all, and later sells the equipment to someone else, genuinely unaware any contract had been formed. Was A already bound to B under the postal rule at the moment B posted the acceptance, despite A's genuine ignorance of this fact?