PROVISIONS OF ACCEPTANCE UNDER THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872

ABSTRACT

The Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines the concept of acceptance as a foundation of a validly enforceable contract. Acceptance is referred to as an unequivocal assent to the offer which turns the proposal into a legally binding agreement. The present paper examines the statutory provisions that regulate acceptance, namely, its definition, essential elements, and the rules given under the Act. Key principles such as absolute and unqualified acceptance, prescribed and reasonable modes of acceptance, and the critical role of communication are analysed in detail. Additionally, the paper explores the timing of acceptance, the postal rule, and the revocation of acceptance under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. Judicial interpretations have further enriched the concept of acceptance, addressing topics such as conditional acceptance, silence as acceptance, and acceptance by conduct. The seminal case laws like Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas & Co. and Trimex International FZE Ltd. v. Vedanta Aluminium Ltd. provided foundational insights, while the modern technological advancements have raised discussion on acceptance in e-contracts and digital communications. Comparative studies with English and U.S. contract laws have shown that Indian law is more nuanced, with a focus on clarity and adherence to prescribed procedures. This paper also touches upon the difficulties in interpreting acceptance, such as time sensitivity, conditional acceptance, and Digitalization. The paper makes a comprehensive review of statutory provisions, judicial precedents, and comparative perspectives to underline the dynamic nature of acceptance in Indian contract law. The findings are that although the Indian legal framework provides robust mechanisms for validating acceptance, the dynamic nature of commerce requires constant adaptation. This study is a guide for legal practitioners, academicians, and students seeking an in-depth understanding of the law of acceptance under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Keywords

Indian Contract Act, 1872, Acceptance, Communication of Acceptance, Revocation, Postal Rule, E-contracts, Judicial Precedents, Contract Law.

INTRODUCTION

The very foundation of the rule of law is contracts; it is within the framework of contracts that a society can function by creating agreements between individuals or entities and making them enforceable. The foundation of contract law in India lies in the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which has been the core on which these basic elements forming a valid contract are based. Of these elements, perhaps the most important is “acceptance,” for it converts an offer into a legally binding promise. Acceptance is an expression of the offeree to accept the terms of the offer, thereby creating mutual obligations which are enforceable by law. The foundation of acceptance comes from Section 2(b) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which stated that “when the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted.”[1] Therefore, it is established in law that acceptance is an intentional and communicated act, the lack of which would not form a contract. However, the mere expression of assent is not enough unless it meets some rules and principles governing acceptance. Such rules and principles include: an unqualified and absolute agreement to the terms, timely communication, observance of prescribed modes, and the absence of conditions.[2] The rules governing acceptance are aimed at bringing clarity to avoid disputes about the validity of contracts. For example, the principle of communication provides that acceptance must have been communicated to the offeror for the contract to be enforceable. As held in Felthouse v. Bindley where silence was not considered acceptance. Secondly, acceptance should be before the lapse of the offer or its revocation as illustrated by the issue of the temporal sensitivity of the agreement.[3] Other than statutory provisions, case law interpretation contributes immensely to the construction of the concept of acceptance. Indian courts have developed English common law principles but translated them into the Indian socio-economic and technological scenario. For example, the postal rule that acceptance is complete with posting a letter has been applied to the electronic communication age with necessary variations. The role of acceptance is far beyond abstractions; it influences commercial dealings, employment contracts, and new-age e-contracts. With an increasing number of digital transactions in India, the principles of acceptance are increasingly being applied to cases involving emails, digital signatures, and online marketplaces. This is an example of how contract law is adapting to meet the challenges of today. This paper discusses the statutory provisions and judicial interpretations of acceptance under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Through landmark case laws and comparative perspectives with other jurisdictions, it tries to provide an in-depth understanding of the concept of acceptance. The study also deals with new issues like acceptance in electronic contracts and the effects of technological developments, emphasizing that legal principles should be continually evolving to suit the modern needs.

RULES GOVERNING ACCEPTANCE

Acceptance is not just a formality but an important element in the creation of a valid contract. To ensure that acceptance results in an enforceable agreement, the Indian Contract Act, 1872, has provided several rules for making acceptance. These rules ensure clarity, consistency, and fairness in the process of a contract so that no dispute arises about the nature and scope of acceptance. Below are the main rules governing acceptance under the Indian Contract Act, 1872:

1. Acceptance Must Be Absolute and Unqualified

Acceptance should be absolute and unqualified to make an offer a binding contract. Any acceptance that brings in new terms or conditions is held to be a counter-offer rather than an acceptance. This is an important rule because, without it, the parties would not be in an outright agreement on the terms of a contract. In the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Service[4] The Supreme Court ruled that an acceptance must be clear and unqualified to form a binding contract. If the offeree introduces new terms or conditions, it is not an acceptance but a counter-offer. The court further emphasized that the original offer cannot be accepted with modifications, as it would constitute a rejection of the initial offer. The rule thus emphasizes that the offer must be accepted exactly as it was made, without any deviation, for it to constitute a valid contract.

2. Acceptance Must Be Communicated

Acceptance is not complete until it is communicated to the offeror. This rule ensures that both parties are aware of their mutual intentions, preventing misunderstandings about the terms of the contract. In Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt [5]the court ruled that an offeror cannot be bound by an acceptance that is not communicated. In this case, the offeree performed an act in response to the offer without communicating acceptance beforehand. The court held that no contract was formed as acceptance was not communicated. The offeree must express his assent to the offer through words, acts, or conduct. This rule is essential because it prevents unilateral misunderstandings and protects both parties by ensuring that there is clear acknowledgment of the agreement.

3. Acceptance Must Be Made in the Prescribed Manner

If the offeror specifies a particular mode of acceptance, then that mode must be followed. The Indian Contract Act, 1872, provides for the possibility that the offeror may prescribe the manner in which the acceptance should be communicated, whether through a letter, email, or other forms. In H.R. Lakshman v. H. L. K. Pvt. Ltd., [6] the court held that if an offeror prescribes any particular mode of acceptance, the offeree is bound to accept it. In this case, the offeror had prescribed a mode of acceptance by signing a contract, and the offeree did not follow the prescribed method, so the court ruled that no valid contract was made. This was a case that restated the importance of maintaining the mode of acceptance as espoused by the offeror.

4. Time of Acceptance

Acceptance must be done within the time frame stipulated by the offeror or within a reasonable time. When an offer is not accepted within the stipulated time, it lapses, and the offeror is discharged from the offer. The Indian Contract Act does not specifically mention “reasonable time” in all cases but leaves it to the judicial discretion to decide what would amount to a reasonable time. In S.K. Gupta v. K.K. Gupta[7], the Delhi High Court applied the principle that where an offer is not accepted within a reasonable time, it lapses. The courts may regard something as “reasonable” differently; this could depend on the subject matter involved, the sense of urgency required by the transaction, and whether or not the time frame has been specified within the offer itself.

5. Acceptance Can Be Made Through Conduct

Acceptance doesn’t necessarily need to occur through an explicit statement of acceptance. Sometimes, just conduct or performance can work as acceptance. For instance, where a contract is unilateral the act of performing the conditions of the contract is acceptance. Among the famous cases is Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893). In this case, it was held that by merely using the smoke ball as instructed the claimant had accepted the offer and satisfied the condition of the contract even without expressing his acceptance.[8]

6. Acceptance Shall Be Made While the Offer Is Still Open

An offer must still be open at the time of acceptance for acceptance to be valid. The right to revoke the offer has been given to the offeror, and he can do that at any time before acceptance. Communication of such revocation also needs to be made with the offeree. Where the offer is revoked or expires, acceptance thereafter cannot be effective. Section 5 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, deals with revocation of an offer and holds that revocation must be done in the manner that makes the offeror withdraw his offer prior to acceptance.[9] Communication for revocation must be done in a manner that makes the offeree understand the withdrawal.

Thus, these rules combined will make the process of acceptance fair and clear while creating the contract. They prevent ambiguous situations where later the parties could dispute even the existence or terms of the contract. By making acceptance not only absolute but also communicated and in the prescribed form before a stipulated time can elapse, the law sets up a framework for predictable, enforceable agreements. These principles further gain strength through judicial precedents that make clear when acceptance should be treated with respect to certain circumstances.

REVOCATION OF ACCEPTANCE

The Indian Contract Act, 1872, provides for the revocation of acceptance under certain conditions, emphasizing the importance of timing and communication in contractual agreements. Section 5 of the Act specifically addresses the revocation of acceptance, stating:

“An acceptance may be revoked at any time before the communication of the acceptance is complete as against the acceptor, but not afterwards.” [10]This section underscores two important considerations: the time frame during which acceptance can be revoked and how revocation must be made. The following is a discussion of the rules and case law governing the revocation of acceptance.

1. Time Period for Revocation of Acceptance

Revocation of acceptance is allowed only before the acceptance becomes binding. According to Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act, the communication of acceptance is complete:

As against the proposer: When it is put in a course of transmission to the proposer so as to be out of the power of the acceptor.

As against the acceptor: When it is to the knowledge of the proposer. This distinction establishes that the acceptor can revoke their acceptance until it reaches the proposer or is known to them. Once the proposer becomes aware of the acceptance, it becomes binding, and revocation is no longer possible.[11]

Illustration: If A sends a letter of acceptance to B, then A can withdraw his acceptance up to the time when B actually reads or receives the letter. But if B has already read the letter, then A cannot withdraw the acceptance.

2. Communication of Revocation

The revocation must reach the proposer in clear and timely manner. It should reach the proposer before the acceptance is communicated to him. It loses its effectiveness if the proposer is not informed of the revocation in time. The court, in Dunlop v. Higgins (1848), discussed the time factor for revocation. It clarified that revocation should reach the offeror before they are informed of acceptance.[12]

3. Revocation in Electronic Communications

Electronic communications have made the principles of revocation applicable to emails and digital messaging. Indian courts have interpreted Section 5 as applying to e-contracts, making it essential that revocation of acceptance should reach the proposer before the latter reads or receives the email of acceptance. Whether the revocation was within the time depends on when it was stamped on the electronic communications. In Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas & Co. (1966), the Supreme Court held that the place and time of communication in contracts should be decided, which is a relevant principle in digital communication cases.[13]

4. Revocation of Unilateral Acceptance

In unilateral contracts where acceptance is through performance, revocation is permitted even until the performance is done. When the offeree started substantial performance, the offeror may be prevented from revoking the offer or the acceptance. In G. H. Eshwari v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.[14] In this case, the court dealt with a unilateral contract in which the offeror made an offer that is deemed contingent upon the offeree performing some act (performance of work). The offeree initiated the performance, and the offeror attempted to revoke the offer in the process of performance. The court, to this effect, determined that once an offeree has undertaken to begin performance of the act required for acceptance, the offeror may not revoke the offer. The performance of the act, even if not completed, signifies the offeree’s acceptance of the offer.

5. Practical Implications and Problems

This principle of revocation is there to balance the rights of both parties. It ensures that while protecting the acceptor’s right to withdraw, it does not bind the proposer to be tied up for a long time. However, the practical issues are the time of communication, which cannot be well determined, especially in the case of delays in postal or electronic communication. Judicial precedents remain essential to the resolution of such disputes.

The revocation of acceptance under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, is a very complex process that depends on the timely communication and adherence to the statutory provisions. It allows the law to provide flexibility to the acceptor in terms of revocation up to the time of acceptance being complete, yet keeping the contractual process intact. The adaptability of these principles to modern modes of communication proves the relevance of the Act in dealing with contemporary contractual challenges.

SPECIAL TYPES OF ACCEPTANCE

Acceptance under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, can be express or implied and takes various forms based on the circumstances and the nature of the contract.

Express acceptance is one of the most common types, where the offeree clearly communicates his or her assent through words, whether written or spoken. This includes signing a document or verbally agreeing to an offer, thus providing clear evidence between the parties.

Implied acceptance results from offeree conduct instead of actual words. For example, when there is start of performance or supply goods without acceptance through previous communication can be said as an illustration of such conduct. Even the case of M. C. Chockalingam v. K. C. Chidambaram [15] the Supreme Court of India acknowledged that an offer could be accepted not only by explicit communication but also through the performance of an act that is consistent with the terms of the offer. In this case, the offeree’s actions of receiving goods and continuing with the transaction implied their acceptance of the terms of the offer, even though no formal communication had taken place.

Another form is conditional acceptance, where the offeree agrees to the offer subject to specific conditions being fulfilled. This type does not create a binding contract until the stipulated conditions are satisfied. The ruling in Hyde v. Wrench (1840) emphasized that a counter-offer introducing new terms amounts to a rejection of the original offer rather than acceptance.[16]

However, although silence often does not constitute acceptance, exceptions arise in cases where prior agreements or conduct between the parties suggest that silence may be considered assent. For instance, if parties have a standing arrangement where no response would mean agreement, then silence might become contractually binding at that point. However, the landmark case Felthouse v. Bindley (1862) upheld the general principle that silence does not constitute acceptance unless agreed upon.[17]

Lastly, acceptance by performance is particularly relevant in unilateral contracts, where acceptance is completed through the offeree performing the act stipulated in the offer. This type is common in reward contracts or tenders. An excellent example is Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893), where the court ruled that performance of the conditions of offer, like the use of the product as recommended, constituted acceptance by performance.[18] Such varied modes of acceptance reveal how contract law can accommodate all sorts of contract situations and ensure that the contracts are legally binding yet also allow for the intention of the parties to contract.

CHALLENGES AND JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS

The concept of acceptance under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, though clearly articulated, has faced several challenges in its interpretation and application. Courts have provided valuable guidance through judicial pronouncements, addressing ambiguities in the timing, manner, and validity of acceptance. These challenges highlight the need for clarity in communication and adherence to established legal principles. One of the major difficulties is the identification of the exact time of acceptance, particularly in cases of post or electronic communication. Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act holds that acceptance is complete as against the offeror when it is put in transmission, and as against the acceptor when it comes to the knowledge of the offeror.[19] However, disputes usually arise when there are delays or failures in communication. In Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas & Co. (1966), the Supreme Court explained that the contract is complete at the place where acceptance is communicated, and timely communication is very important.[20] Another challenge relates to conditional or qualified acceptance, where the offeree introduces new terms or conditions. Such acceptance, under Indian law, amounts to a counter-offer, as held in Union of India v. Bahulal (1968).[21] The court noted that a counter-offer, in effect, rejects the original offer and requires fresh acceptance by the original offeror. This principle ensures that contracts come into existence only when parties are in mutual consensus with regard to the terms. Another complexity arises in the form of mode of acceptance. If the offeror prescribes a specific mode, any deviation may render the acceptance invalid unless the offeror waives the requirement. This issue was addressed in Kanhaiyalal Agrawal v. Union of India (2002), where the court held that substantial compliance with the prescribed mode could suffice if the offeror did not object promptly.[22] The rise of digital communications has further complicated acceptance-related disputes. Courts have begun to address these challenges by calling for clarity in determining time and place of acceptance in online contracts. In Trimex International FZE Ltd. v. Vedanta Aluminium Ltd. (2010), the Supreme Court recognized email exchanges as modes of acceptance, if the terms are clear and unambiguous.[23] These challenges and judicial interpretations reflect the evolving nature of contract law in India. Indian courts continue to shape the principles governing acceptance by resolving ambiguities and addressing technological advancements, ensuring fairness and consistency in contractual dealings.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS

Acceptance, a crucial and integral component of contract formation, differs between jurisdictions regarding its definition. Whereas India’s Contract Act, 1872 makes provisions comprehensive, the understanding varies for other countries on the grounds that different features are there. Acceptance in India is regulated by Sections 3 to 5 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which stipulate communication, time and revocation.[24] As against the proposer, acceptance is complete when dispatched by the offeree and as against the offeree when received by the proposer.[25] The “dispatch rule” finds a close resemblance with the English law, where the postal rule applies, which was first propounded in Adams v. Lindsell in 1818.[26] According to this rule, the acceptance is complete when posted by the offeree though delayed or even lost. However, in contrast, Indian law allows the proposer to revoke the offer until acceptance is communicated. In the United States, the principle of acceptance is governed by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) for goods contracts and common law for other contracts. Like Indian and English law, the UCC accedes to the mailbox rule for acceptance.[27] Yet the mirror image rule of the US is given greater prominence because acceptance must mirror the words of the offer exactly, and any difference constitutes a counter-offer. It is true that even Indian law accedes that a conditional acceptance constitutes a counter-offer as Union of India v. Bahulal (1968) has established.[28] Civil law jurisdictions including Germany and France take an entirely different view on acceptance. German law, under the Burgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB), requires acceptance to be effective only if it reaches the offeror, and the emphasis is on the principle of “receipt.”[29] This is more stringent than the Indian “dispatch rule” but accords with Indian principles on revocation, as the acceptor retains control until the acceptance reaches the proposer. French law, under the Code Civil, also follows the receipt principle but permits latitude for implied acceptance, especially in commercial contracts. In the electronic world, jurisdictions are changing to accommodate electronic communication. The European Union e-Commerce Directive sets a precedent that electronic acceptance is valid. This is similarly established through cases in India, like Trimex International FZE Ltd. v. Vedanta Aluminium Ltd. (2010).[30] Here again, the basic principles of acceptances are similar between jurisdictions but then diverge on matters regarding timing, communication, and implied acceptance. Indian contract law, because of the balance between these two rules, is that hybrid model which is influenced by both traditions of common law and civil law.

LANDMARK CASES

Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas & Co. (1966)[31]– This is a landmark case regarding the principle of communication of acceptance in contact formation through instantaneous modes such as telephones. The Supreme Court of India discussed whether a contract has come into existence when acceptance is communicated but not effectively received by the offeror. In the case, the defendant offered to buy cotton seed cakes over the telephone. The plaintiff claimed to have accepted the offer, but the communication was vague and not heard effectively by the defendant. The court had to determine whether the contract was concluded despite the failure in communication. The court held that for contracts formed through instantaneous communication, acceptance is complete only when it is successfully received and understood by the proposer. Unlike postal rule which applies to non-instantaneous communications such as letter, the principle in this case is that both parties must be so aware of acceptance at the same time. The court laid emphasis to the effect that the moment of contract formation is when the acceptance is effectively communicated to the proposer. This decision clarified the rules governing contracts formed via instant modes of communication, ensuring that offerors are not unfairly bound by unreceived or misunderstood acceptances. It remains a significant precedent in Indian contract law.
Felthouse v. Bindley (1862)[32]– This English case established the principle that silence cannot amount to acceptance, and this principle is followed in the contract law of every country, including India. The plaintiff, Felthouse, wrote to his nephew stating an offer to buy a horse and added that if he did not hear back, he would consider the offer accepted. The nephew intended to sell the horse but did not explicitly communicate acceptance. Bindley, the auctioneer, accidentally sold the horse later on. Felthouse sued Bindley for conversion of the horse, based on the fact that the nephew had accepted by his silence. The court ruled that no contract was formed as the nephew’s silence was not acceptance. Acceptance must be an overt act communicated to the offeror for mutual agreement. This falls under Section 2(b) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It has reemphasized that silence or inaction can never amount to acceptance so as to bring fairness and clarity to contract dealings.
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893)[33]– This landmark English case established key principles for unilateral contracts and their acceptance. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company advertised a reward of £100 to anyone who contracted influenza after using their product as directed. Mrs. Carlill, having used the product and later contracting influenza, claimed the reward. The company refused, arguing that no formal acceptance or contract existed. The court held that the advertisement constituted a unilateral offer to the public, which could be accepted by performing the specified conditions (using the smoke ball and subsequently contracting influenza). Mrs. Carlill’s compliance with the conditions constituted acceptance, forming a binding contract. The case established that in unilateral contracts, acceptance does not require direct communication but is completed when the offeree fulfils the specified terms. It also clarified that such offers are enforceable if there is clear intent to be bound, as exemplified by actions such as the company depositing money as a guarantee. This case influences Indian contract law because it shows that acceptance can be inferred from conduct in certain scenarios, as provided under Section 8 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which states that performance of conditions is acceptance in contracts of this nature.
Trimex International FZE Ltd. v. Vedanta Aluminium Ltd. (2010)[34]– This case dealt with acceptance in electronic contracts and decided that a digital correspondence indicating mutual assent over fundamental terms amounts to a valid contract. The Supreme Court of India held that acts and correspondence showing clear assent serve to constitute acceptance under Section 7 of the Indian Contract Act. Under this judgment, it was established that electronic communications, such as emails, also form valid contracts. This proves the versatility of the law, adapting to how business transactions occur today, such as digitalized ones, blending age-old doctrine with contemporary technicality.
Hyde v. Wrench (1840)[35]– This case clarified that a counteroffer amounts to rejection of the original offer, rendering it invalid for subsequent acceptance. The defendant offered to sell property at a fixed price, which the plaintiff countered with a lower offer. When the defendant rejected the counteroffer, the plaintiff tried to accept the original offer, but the court ruled no contract existed. This principle, as reflected in Section 7(1) of the Indian Contract Act, underlines the fact that a contract is formed only by unqualified acceptance and not by selective revival of previous offers.
Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Datt, (1913)[36]– This case is a classic example of how acceptance must be communicated for a valid contract. Here, the offeree, without acceptance communication, performed the act-the search for the missing nephew-but the court ruled out that there was no acceptance because the offeree had not communicated acceptance before performing. It strictly puts forward that there must be an expression of acceptance, otherwise, mere performance cannot presume an acceptance in absence of prior communication.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Service (1991)[37]– This case focuses on the point that acceptance must be clear, unambiguous and communicated to the offeror. The Supreme Court held that acceptance communicated only by a non-official or informal manner (without proper confirmation) does not form a binding contract. The case underscored the fact that, in commercial transactions, communication was the essence of a valid contract.

CONCLUSION

Acceptance is the fundamental principle of contract law of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. For the reason that the law lays down such an acceptance has to be an absolute and unconditional and communicated to the proposer, it provides contracts on the principle of mutual concurrence. It places importance in its provision, judgment, on clearness, the adherence of the time bar, and adequate communication in providing the binding contract. Acceptance is not a mere formality but rather a substantive act that finalizes an agreement, making an offer a legally binding promise. Issues of timing, conditional acceptance, and revocation further underscore the fluid nature of contractual relationships. Indian courts, through landmark decisions such as Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas & Co. and Trimex International FZE Ltd. v. Vedanta Aluminium Ltd., have allowed the law to keep up with technological as well as commercial developments. Indian law accommodates the “postal rule” of the common law and the “receipt rule” of the civil law appropriately to position itself between these two rival streams of jurisprudence. This hybrid, while being accommodating to various scenarios, also stresses fairness and flexibility in interpreting contracts. More importantly, the recognition by Indian courts of electronic communications shows that the law does not resist modern business practice.

Acceptance under the Indian Contract Act is a sound framework to allow for smooth and just contractual dealings. Challenges persist, but judicial interpretations and comparative insights from other jurisdictions can help alleviate ambiguities. The evolution of technology is going to shape contractual practices; hence, the law will remain relevant in ensuring that there are reliable and fair agreements both locally and internationally. In conclusion, while challenges persist, particularly with new-age digital transactions, Indian contract law’s approach to acceptance under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 remains relevant and robust. The principles of clear communication, absolute acceptance, timely responses, and the flexibility in accommodating modern business practices ensure that Indian contract law can effectively handle the complexities of both traditional and contemporary contractual relationships. As India continues to engage with the global economy and adapt to technological innovations, the legal framework for acceptance will undoubtedly evolve to remain fair, just, and in harmony with international standards.

REFERENCES

Avtar Singh, Law of Contract and Specific Relief, Eastern Book Company.
Pollock, F., & Mulla, D.F., Indian Contract Act and Specific Relief Acts, LexisNexis.
Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), United States, S. 2-206.
European Union, e-Commerce Directive (Directive 2000/31/EC).
Atiyah, P.S., Introduction to the Law of Contract, Oxford University Press.
European Legal Research, Offer and Acceptance in Modern Contract Law, available at www.jstor.org.
Tulane Law Review, The Notion and Function of Offer and Acceptance Under French and English Law, available at www.tulanelawreview.org.
Law Bhoomi, Acceptance under Indian Contract Act, available at www.lawbhoomi.com.
Drishti Judiciary Blog, Acceptance under the Indian Contract Act, available at www.drishtijudiciary.com.
Law of Contracts – Cases and Materials, LexisNexis India.
Indian Contract Act, 1872, Bare Act.
“Indian Contract Act, 1872: A Commentary” by M. P. Tandon
“The Indian Contract Act, 1872” by R.K. Sinha

[1] Indian Contract Act, 1872, S.2(b)

[2] Anson, W.R., Anson’s Law of Contract, Oxford University Press, Chapter 5

[3] Felthouse v. Bindley, (1862) 11 CB (NS) 869

[4] Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Service (1991)

[5] Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt (1913)

[6] H.R. Lakshman v. H. L. K. Pvt. Ltd. (1999)

[7] S.K. Gupta v. K.K. Gupta (1976)

[8] Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., [1893] 1 QB 256

[9] Indian Contract Act, 1872, S. 5

[10] Ibid

[11]Indian Contract Act, 1872, S. 4

[12] Dunlop v. Higgins, (1848) 1 HLC 381

[13] Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas & Co., AIR 1966 SC 543

[14] G. H. Eshwari v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2000)

[15] M. C. Chockalingam v. K. C. Chidambaram (1954)

[16] Ibid

[17] Supra Note 2

[18] Ibid

[19] Ibid

[20] Ibid

[21] Union of India v. Bahulal, AIR 1968 SC 672

[22] Kanhaiyalal Agrawal v. Union of India, (2002) 10 SCC 457

[23] Trimex International FZE Ltd. v. Vedanta Aluminium Ltd., (2010) 3 SCC 1

[24] Indian Contract Act, 1872, S. 3-5

[25] Supra note 10

[26] Adams v. Lindsell, (1818) 1 B & Ald 681

[27] Uniform Commercial Code, S. 2-206

[28] Ibid

[29] Burgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB), S.130

[30] Ibid

[31] Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas & Co. (1966)

[32] Felthouse v. Bindley (1862)

[33] Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893)

[34] Trimex International FZE Ltd. v. Vedanta Aluminium Ltd. (2010)

[35] Hyde v. Wrench (1840)

[36] Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Datt, (1913)

[37] Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Service (1991)

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.