Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
Postal Rule Of Acceptance - With A Free Essay Review
THIS ESSAY WAS DELETED AT REQUEST OF USER
I'm afraid I cannot comment on the merits of this discussion of the The Postal Rule, because I'm ignorant of the criteria by which its merits ought to be assessed. I can tell you that I do not think the report is sufficiently clear, primarily because of imprecise language, although there is also less explanation of the significance of the cases you cite. For example, you say at one point that "circumstances can be such that the court is justified [note correction] in believing that the operation of the rule is unreasonable, or will produce unjust outcomes." That seems to my untrained eye like the kind of claim that ought to be elucidated, but you don't specify the kinds of circumstances that you have in mind here. You refer, however, to the case of Tallerman v Nathan's Merchandise, and perhaps in some forms of writing it is acceptable merely to refer the reader to cases in this way, but I was surprised that you did not explain the significance of the case. You do say that "correspondence by solicitors was disputatious correspondence" but that fact didn’t clear things up for me. Are you saying that now whenever correspondence is disputatious, then the offeror is not bound by the rule? That seems odd, but if it is what you are saying, then I think you ought to say it, and perhaps give an example of what counts as disputatious correspondence (unless that’s a standard expression in legal writing).
Here are a few examples of the first problem (imprecision)
Some phrases just seem a little off (e.g., "the birth of the postal rule's precedent"; why not just say, "precedent was established in 1818")
The following sentence is a bit of a chore to get through: “However if there is an absence of a specified contrary method of acceptance, it is generally unrestricted that an offeree may use a quicker or more reliable method without infringing the rule that acceptance must be in accordance with an offer.” It is not clear (to me) what you mean by "contrary method" (contrary to what?), but in any case, the first part of the sentence could be more simply stated: "However, if no contrary(?) method of acceptance is specified, an offeree etc."
Under "Rationale" [note spelling correction], you write "The Postal Rule's [note apostrophe] place and purpose ... has often taken on much castigation." "Castigation" is normally used in the case of persons, so "deprecation" would be the better choice, but even if it were the right word, the phrase is still awkward; consider "has been subject to much castigation" or, better, "has often been castigated" or "has been deprecated."
The problem in the following is presumably just a word choice problem (I think you want "influenced" for "reflected"): "This decision is reflected by the ability of the offeror being able to exclude the rule, and the idea that it will lead to contracts being more quickly concluded"
The problem in the following is also word-choice, but I'm not sure what you wanted to say here, so I cannot correct it for you: "Defamation of the Postal Rule may also be confute[d]." Perhaps you meant something like "Deprecation ... can be answered ..."
"The time of dispatch." You introduce this term in a context that suggest that it has legal significance, but you use it only once and don't specify its meaning. I thought initially you had wanted to say something like "time of acceptance," but since you go on to say that the postal rule of acceptance "does not apply to electronic communications by analogy," I end up unsure whether you are trying to suggest that the new laws dealing with electronic communications are intended to make the postal rule applicable since it is not applicable "by analogy," or whether instead the laws replace, as it were, the postal rule for all electronically communicated acceptances. I'm also not immediately convinced by your argument that the postal rule would not apply by analogy to electronic communications. While such communication is often as close to instantaneous as makes no difference, it is not in fact instantaneous. It may be that one could send an email and the message is seriously delayed (due to a server failure, say) or not delivered (due to some filter) to the intended recipient's inbox.