Quote ="Oz-Bull"My legal experience is rusty, so forgive me if I'm barking up the wrong tree here, but Adams v Lindsell is primarily about contract dates with relation to the post, isn't it? In that case, both parties had signed the contract in question, but the issue came down to whether the contract was in force from the time the letter was posted or when it was received. Technology has changed somewhat since 1818, nowadays it's quite simple to fax/email a scan of the completed contract as confimation that it's been signed, or to phone (none of which were available in 181icon_cool.gif to confirm that it had been accepted.
'"
Adam v Lindsell implicitly recognized the meeting of minds in contract law. This is where the jurisprudence of the "offer" comes from. The postal rule is still valid for postal mail. It does not apply for emails or fax transmissions, but does for the old "snail" mail.
Quote
Dunlop v Higgins on the other hand deals with the event that the signed contract never arrives through the loss of the post. In this case, again no-one has confirmed that the contract was actually signed by both parties. If it's the signing that's being disputed, as opposed to the sign contract arriving, neither precedent would be relevant.'"
Dunlop v Higgins affirms Adams v Lindsall. Re-read the case.
