Contract Law

Acceptance

Contrast between the ordinary rule of acceptance (that acceptance is acceptance when the acceptance is communicated to the offerer – deals with time, not place), and the Postal Rule of Acceptance (Acceptance occurs when the acceptance is mailed).

When does the Postal Rule of Acceptance apply?  Obviously enough, when the post is involved.  Just because the post has been used, however, does not mean that it does apply.  The theoretical rule is that it applies when the offerer intended that the offeree’s acceptance would have the benefit of this rule of acceptance.

However, when will the court deem that the offerer has deemed this acceptable?  If the offerer made the offer by post (this makes it implicit).  Not all responses by post attach this rule.  Secondly, the courts have decided that the postal rule of acceptance will attach to an acceptance if use of the post in that context would not be unusual.

30 years ago, much contracting was done by post.  Somewhat less true today.

If the offeree was not intended to have the benefit of the postal rule of acceptance, then they simply do not have it.

Schiller v. Fisher. P 423.
•    Negotiating a land purchase.
•    Going back and forth, so the role of offerer and offeree changes.
•    Kingsmont makes final offer, by letter.
•    This offer expired on Sept 1.
•    P 424 – actual agreement with expiration date.  This is an express expiration (as opposed to implicit).
•    Covering letter said, “return one copy of the Agreement to us as soon as possible.”
•    In this case, what does the word “accepted” mean in “This offer is to be accepted on or before September 1, 1976”
•    Normally, the fact of the assent would needs be communicated to the offerer by this date.
•    Nu-towne signed on Sept 1, mailed Sept 3, rec’d Sept 8.
•    Under any of the normal rules of Acceptance, it was too late…
•    The counter-argument was that the words in the cover letter expressed the offerer’s view that an acceptable acceptance was different in this case.
•    The argument went that the covering letter, stating “as soon as possible” altered the “normal” rules of acceptance.
•    This also does not fall under the Postal Rule of Acceptance – the covering letter overrules both.
•    The trial judgement was in favour of Nu-towne.  Court of Appeal was in favour of Kingsmont (offerer).  SCC found in favour of Nu-towne.
•    Basically, the would-be purchasers, Kingsmont, obviously wants out of the contract.  We don’t know why – perhaps a better offer, who knows¿  They are using this legal pretext to try to get out.  A legal nitpick.

The rules of acceptance are about the “when” of acceptance.
Under the general rule, it is not acceptance until it is communicated.  Under the postal rule, it is when it is posted, whether the Acceptance actually arrives or not.

The When of acceptance also determines the “Where of Acceptance”.
When people form contracts inter-jurisdictionally (as in Canada, where we have 12+ jurisdictions – Contract law is the responsibility of provinces), it follows that sometimes the “Where” is very important – potential law suits depend on the where.
Not just relevant between different countries – also relevant, say, between NB and NS.
This is relevant because if one of the parties decides to sue the other, the plaintiff will typically decide to sue in his or her own home jurisdiction.
Courts have to decide whether they have jurisdiction over disputes.  In the Rules of Court of any jurisdiction, there are rules to guide judges in determining whether to accept jurisdiction over cases.  One of the rules is whether the contract was formed in the jurisdcition.
P427 – Ontario rules.

Cannot ascertain where a contract is made without first determining when it was made.  This often hinges on the rules of acceptance.

P427 - EASTERN POWER LTD. v. AZIENDA COMMUNALE ENERGIA AND AMBIENTE

A cooperation agreement assented to between parties.
Is a cooperation agreement an enforceable agreement at all?  This will be examined next class.
EP looking for loss of profits on a contract that was never carried out.
If Azienda had actually appeared in the courts in Ontario, it might have changed the case.  Did eventually, and argued to have the case set aside on the grounds that the courts there did not have jurisdiction over them in Italy.
The determining factor was whether the contract was formed in Italy or Canada (Ontario).
The medium is important here – acceptance was sent my facsimile.  Does the postal rule apply?
Is fax more analogous to personal communication or postal communication?
The court judged that it was more analogous to personal communication…
This hinges again on the presumtion that the offerer has not specified what constitutes Acceptance.  The ordinary rule of acceptance applied here.  This was in part formed on the basis that a fax is instant.
This case is about the choice of forum – which court has jurisdiction.
In Canadian jurisdiction, for instance, in a case between NB and AB, a court in NB may use NB procedural law, but AB substantive law.  Forum clauses can effect this.
There is a question of whose substantive law will be used.

There is a subtext here.  Considering forum non conveniens grounds here.  Takes into account whether a judge in Ontario would have to use Italian law, and how difficult that would be.

Must take into account wehther it is a convenient or not convenient venue for the trial.  The parties did not appear to be accustomed to International Trading.  They did not have a choice of law clause, nor a choice of forum clause.

Sometimes courts will overrule these clauses if it is believed that one party is using its dominance to subvert the other.  This could have come up in the Rudder case.

Choice of forum versus Choice of Law.  Distinguish.

Postal rule does not apply to couriers…  The Ordinary rule of acceptance applied to phone, fax, emails, and couriers.  It is a tightly confined rule.

Rudder v. Microsoft Corp.

Plaintiffs saying that one particular clause (choice of forum clause) should not be binding.

Want to sue MS in Ontario, because it is cheaper in Ontario (and perhaps more sympathetic).  Ontario, since this time, has likely tightened up their class-action laws.

Ask the judge to strike out this part of the Agreement.  Argue that they did not give assent to this clause though they clicked ‘I Accept’.

Judge disagrees.  The pl says that one should liken everything not currently on the screen to fine print.  Courts approach fine print in a rather hostile way.  Judge says that it literally is not fine print (all the same text).

This is a more straightforward argument – ‘I didn’t assent.  I didn’t assent because I didn’t know about it.  I didn’t know about it because it was “fine print”.’

If the parties have chosen their forum, then it doesn’t matter about rules of acceptance regarding jurisdictions.  The contract tells you what will be the forum.

For next day, look at Electronic Transactions Act of NB.  We will examine s16, but read it all.
Will look as far as Dawson.  This examines one issue in Carlill.  Read notes on 445-446.    We might also look at the uncertainty jurisprudence.  Read opening notes of next section of syllabus.

Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd. v. Maher

Facts:

•    Negotiating towards a lease
•    Waltons leads the prospective landlord to believe that there will be a lease.
•    As such, the landlord does what they have to do get the new building up on time for Waltons
•    New building 40% completed when Waltons walked away.
•    Landlord sues, alleging in effect that Waltons promised to enter into the lease, and that they should be estopped from walk away.
•    Council for Waltons held that there was no promise there.
•    Council had to construct the promise – this was done satisfactorily
o    However, looked like a mere promise
o    Reliance was non-bargained for.
o    Looks like Dalhousie
•    We are in the realm of promissor estoppel.
o    Though cast widely in High Trees, was reigned in in Combe v. Combe.
o    Promisee here is suing to have the promiser esoptted
o    Offensively…
o    Court acknoledges all of this
o    Promissory estoppel usually used as defensive equity, not offensive.
o    Concern is that if we allow ppl to sue on promises alone, then what is left of the doctrine of consideration
•    If we allowed ppl to use estoppel offensively, then in effect, we could be doing the very thing that Dalhousie was accused of doing – allowing the recipient of a promise to retrospectively convert what was meant to be a gratutious promise into an enforceable promise just by relying on it.
o    Would be getting into the business of enforcing gratuitous promises.
•    Will we require the doctrne of consideration or a seal to enforce promises offensively, or is there some other basis?
•    Para 22
•    Normally say, as per combe v. combe that we will not enforce promises offensively
o    However, these is a small area of jurisprudence where we do enforce promises based on nothing more than reasonable reliance.
o    Promissory estoppel
o    If the promisor has promised the promissee an interest in land (real property) and the promissee has relied on this to their detriment, then the law can enforce the promise.
•    They look at the U.S.
•    Second-class enforcement
o    Promise enforced to the extent that the promissee relied on it
o    Only so much enforcement as necessary.
o    Get the value not of the [ticket to florida].  Get the value of the [preparations one made for the trip].
o    In the U.S., the restatement (NOT A STATUTE) is accepted in some states.
•    Accepted generally that one can sue on estoppel.
•    Para 25, 26
o    Start making the point – (26) – make an important point
•    Having just said that in the U.S. they allow Ps to sue on the basis of nothing but an estoppel, they then observe that the words of s. 90 of the restatement, the substance is of promise enforcement.
•    Whereas they say in the Anglo-Australian context that estoppel is not about promise-enforcement, but about injustice prevention (prevention of unconscionability).
•    So does vary in its emphasis with American contract theory.
•    Links U.S> restatement of estoppel with obsession with consideration, and have in common promise enfircement.
•    Even estoppel section cast as if it were about promise enforcement (even though as we look at it (through high trees) that we look at the victim, not the promisor’s promise).
•    It is not that we so love promises that the law will enforce promises no matter what – it is that estoppel has at its root (for us) injustice prevention.
•    Then say something new:
o    Say that promise breaking itself is not unconscionable
o    Say that even the promissee’s reasonable reliance, per se, does not create unconscionability.
o    Why is this not unconscionable?
•    People in our culture just know that the law does not enforce gratuitous promises.
•    People know that reliance on such a promise is at one’s own risk.
o    Something more is required…
•    Making distinction between the sword and the shield
•    In trad. Estoppel, all one needs is a promise intended to be relied upon and relied upon.
•    Now say that to use estoppel offensively need more than this.
o    Whether they intended to create two sets of criteria for estoppel, they seem to have done so.
o    What is this ‘something more’ that is required.
•    In this case, say there are two special factors
o    1)  Sense of urgency because of the tenant’s timeline
o    2)  The tenant’s inaction when it knew the landlord was acting on the promise.
•    Say that the inaction acted as encouragement
•    In this case, doing nothing effected doing something.
•    Note para 25 – “The object of the equity is not to compel the promisor to fulfill the promise, it is to avoid the detriment which, if the promise goes unfulfilled, works to the detriment of the promissee.”
•    Conclusion:
o    The court does estop the tenant from denying that it has a lease with the landlord
•    (though of course they do not have a lease)
o    here, estoppel used as a sword.
o    “Is this just one of many semi-interesting cases which languih unnoticed, or is this considered to be important in the common law?  What is Waltons status in Canada?
Has enough time passed that we can conclude that the idea went nowhere?
Will want to, before the exam, reasearch the case – not whether it has been followed.
Is the hurdle so high (the two conditions) for unconscionability that the cases have just not come up since?

Formality
•    page 226
•    Begin with famous article by a famous U.S. legal realist from 1930s.  German origins.
o    Fuller – we have snippet of introduction
o    Taxonomy on variety of purposes of legal formalities.
o    Not all formaities serves all of these purposes
o    Identification of the three poss. functions
•    Formalities:  No set list – anything that the law requires you to do to have a binding contract:
o    Writing
o    Witnesses
o    Written
o    Handshake
o    Handshake with witnesses
o    Gov. licence, like a stamp
o    A seal
o    Witnessed by a notary
•    Fullers 3 functions:
o    Evidentary:  Something like a written contract generates physical evidence of what the agreement was.
•    A handshake, on the other hand, does not have much evidentary functions (unless, perhaps, it was in front of witnesses)
o    Cautionary:  the more elaborate the formality the law requires one to go through, the more the compeltion of it causes a person to acknowledge the importance of their agreement.
•    Ex:  If the law requires that an agreement be made in front of a lawyer, enforces the seriousness of the legal agreement.
•    To the extent that the formality is awkward or ritualistic, the parties have time for second-thoughts.
o    Channelling:  There could be the sort of formality which, if envoked, would tell the parties that they had the sort of agreement which the courts would enforce.
•    Suppose there were a way to make a gift promise enforceable – such as going to the gov. for a certain type of stamp.
•    A stamped contract then would be channelled into the realm of enforceability
•    We have this in regards to seals.
•    Seals put promises into the realm of enforceability.
•    The only formalities in the common-law tradition are the seal, and writing.
•    The seal is a positive formality.
•    If one seals one’s promise, the promise is destined for a certain outcome – it adds a positive result.
•    Writing is a negative formality.
o    In a certain narrow set of contracts, the law says that the contract can’t be enforced unless it is written.  This is negative – WON’T be enforced unless it is written.
o    The seal is the pos formality.
•    In other words, the common-law tradition puts very little emphasis on formalities
o    Fuller argues that the doctrine of consideration in itself is a type of formality.

Seals
•    A SPECIAL contract
o    This is the term
•    Also called a formal contract – in distinction from a normal contract – a “simple contract”
•    A deed – an instrument under seal.
•    The major significance is that the promissee of this promise has alonger period under which to bring action to enfore the promise, than if the promise were not under seal.
•    Under ordinary promise, have 6 years
o    BUT, under seal, in most provinces (except Ontario), the victim has 20 years with which to sue.
o    Good for the victim, but inconveneintly long – memories fade.
•    Rarely see lawsuits after so long
•    What constitutes a seal?
o    In the past, a seal was a blob of melted wax, into which something was impressed to make it obvious that it was one’s seal.
o    No seal is a seal unless it is one’s personal seal.
o    A blob of wax beside someone’s name is not a seal unless it is adopted as a seal and can be identified as such.
o    A thumbprint would do it.
•    Modern approach:
o    To have it pre-printed on the form – probably intended that the client be handed a seal to put on the document – can be purchased at stationary shops
o    Question arises:  What if the client does not do this?  What if the area to place the seal is there (page 250 – suggest L.S. is the latin for the place for the seal)
•    Is this then the seal?
•    This would defeat the cautionary function.
•    This comes up in the courts, and they go back and forth on the answer.
•    Question is, is this the client’s seal?
•    Doen’t count unless it is someone’s seal.  The client must have done something to adopt it.
•    Argument that signing beside it is enough for adoption
•    Courts reluctant to come to an answer on this.
•    Note recommendations of Ontario commission
•    In Foakes v. Beer
o    Hint at a side-light of the seal – if the parties made a contract under seal, it was the law that both sides could nt vary the contract, except by another contract under seal.

Next day:  will look at writing requirements just notes page 385