If an offeror states that his or her offer must be accepted in a particular way, then only acceptance by that method or an equally effective one will be binding. To be considered equally effective, a mode of acceptance should not be slower than the method specified in the offer, nor have any disadvantages for the offeror. This was the position of the court in Tinn v Hoffman (1873) in which it was stated that where the offeree was asked to reply “by the return of post”, any method which would arrive before the return of post would be sufficient.
Where a specified method of acceptance has been included for the offeree’s own benefit, however, the offeree is not obliged to accept in that way.
The case of Felthouse v Bindley (1862) shows that, although the offer can stipulate how the acceptance is to be made, he or she cannot stipulate that silence shall amount to acceptance.
An offeror who has requested the offeree to use a particular method of acceptance can always waive the right to insist on that method.

Scroll to Top