The Postal Rule: When a Letter You Never Received Still Binds You Quiz — 5 Free Questions

📖 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

Which of the following most comprehensively and accurately summarises the postal rule as described in the passage?

Question 2

Which of the following is the general rule regarding when acceptance of an offer becomes effective, according to the passage?

Question 3

Which of the following would prevent the postal rule from applying to a given transaction, according to the passage?

Question 4

A offers to sell his car to B via a face-to-face conversation, and B, standing right there, immediately says "I accept" out loud, which A clearly hears. Does the postal rule apply to determine when this contract was formed?

Question 5

Which of the following most accurately describes the moment a contract becomes binding where the postal rule genuinely applies, according to the passage?

📚 All Quizzes

Browse every category and see the full list of quizzes on BriskQuiz

→

About The Postal Rule: When a Letter You Never Received Still Binds You

CLAT's Legal Reasoning section states a legal principle plainly and then tests whether you can apply it to a series of independent, invented fact scenarios -- no prior knowledge of actual contract law is required, since every answer follows directly from the principle given at the top of this quiz.

This quiz explains the postal rule -- the exception under which acceptance sent by post is complete on posting rather than on receipt -- and its limits: it applies only where post is a reasonable, contemplated method, never where the offeror has required actual receipt or stipulated another method, and never to instantaneous communication like a phone call or instant message.

The twenty questions attached to it move through the doctrine from every angle CLAT actually tests: scenarios where the rule plainly applies, scenarios that look similar but fall outside it, an Assertion-Reason question, a multi-situation comparison question, and direct recall of the doctrine itself.

Only five of the twenty questions are shown on any single attempt, so replaying this quiz brings a genuinely different set of scenarios rather than the same five memorised by rote.