Beehive v Tricky
Aug 25 1999 Beehive faxed offer to Tricky; request to fax acceptance by sending 3 signed copies
Aug 25 1999 Tricky received fax
Aug 26, 1999 Beehive mailed four copies of an offer with request to return acceptance;
Aug 28,1999 Tricky received letter.
Conclusion:
B sent two offers, one by fax, one by mail, with the request to accept and send acceptance.
At this time, T has not accepted, so NO CONTRACT
Aug 29, 1999 T called B to clarify B’s offer. Implied verbal acceptance.
Q. 1.Is Sue Ellen’s verbal promise actually an acceptance? Is she in a position to make such a decision?
2. Would her verbal acceptance satisfy the requirement of “meeting of the minds”?
3. Would it not be necessary to confirm the acceptance in writing?
Aug 30, 1999 T mailed acceptance as requested in B’s mailed offer.
Q. 1. Does it matter if written communication is by mail or fax? 2. Why would B have sent a letter on top of the fax? 3. Is the consideration mentioned in T’s acceptance what B had offered, or is this a new item, which would make T’s acceptance a counter offer?
Aug 31, 1999 T received B’s revocation by fax
Sept 5 1999 B received T’s acceptance by mail.
a. B was anxious to purchase logs, but it took T 4 days to call B back and another day to mail the acceptance. Each party would have known that in a business where price volatility is high, time is of the essence. This was indicated in B’s fax which requested a reply ASAP. Tricky, however, procrastinated and seemed to disinterested in the deal. As T also did not respond to B’s fax request in kind, it did not comply with the essential terms set out by B. This suggests there was no contract to begin with and T has no cause of action against B.
b. T’s written reply to B follows B’s written offer, a clarification on the phone, and written acceptance as based on the post box rule. T has made a commitment to sell these logs for $575,000 and has to stand by its position. The faxed revocation is irrelevant as B had made two offers.
