Communication of Offer

The section 4 of Indian Contract Act 1872 says that the communication of the offer is complete
when it comes to the knowledge of the person it has been made to. So when the offeree (in case
of a specific offer) or any member of the public (in case of a general offer) becomes aware of the
offer, the communication of the offer is said to be complete.

So when two people are talking, face-to-face or via telephone etc, the communication will be
complete as soon as the offer is made. Example if A tells B he will fix his roof for five thousand
rupees, the communication is complete as soon as the words are spoken.

Let us take the same example. A writes to B offering to fix his roof for five thousand rupees. He
posts the letter on 2nd  July. The letter reaches B on 4th July. So the communication is said to
complete on 4th July.

Communication of Acceptance

Mode of Acceptance

In this case of communication of acceptance, there are two factors to consider, the mode of
acceptance and then the timing of it. Let us first talk about the mode of acceptance. Acceptance
can be done in two ways, namely

A. Communication of Acceptance by an Act: This would include communication via

words, whether oral or written. So this will include communication via telephone calls,
letters, e-mails, telegraphs etc.

B. Communication of Acceptance by Conduct: The offeree can also convey his

acceptance of the offer through some action of his, or by his conduct. So say when you
board a bus, you are accepting to pay the bus fare via your conduct.

Timing of Acceptance

The communication of acceptance has two parts. Let us take a look

A. As against the Offeror: For the proposer, the communication of the acceptance is
complete when he puts such acceptance in the course of transmission. After this it is out
of his hand to revoke such acceptance, so his communication will be completed then. So,
for example, A accepts the offer of B via a letter. He posts the letter on 10 th July and the
letter reaches B on 14th For B (the proposer) the communication of the acceptance is
completed on 10th July itself.

B. As against the Acceptor: The communication in case of the acceptor is complete when

the proposer acquires knowledge of such acceptance. So in the above example, A’s
communication will be complete on 14th July, when B learns of the acceptance.

C. Generally a contract formed when acceptance is communicated to the offeror. In face-to-

face negotiations this rule provides few problems. However, the development of methods
of communicating over distance and the associated reliability problems, thecase often
arises when the offeree has dispatched an acceptance which is either never received by
the offeror or arrives after expiry of the offer.The issue to be resolved in each case is
whether the acceptance is communicated tothe offeree when it is sent or when it arrives.
Case law tends to distinguish betweendelayed forms of communication such as mail,
telegram and virtually instantaneousforms of communication such as telephone, telex,
D. fax machine and email.
E. The question comes to “exactly when does communication of acceptance getcompleted,
considering the se of telephone, fax, telex and email”?
F. 2
G.  
H. Contract:
I. An agreement which is a legally binding or enforceable by law is called a
Contract. Dueto this, it can be seen that not all agreements are enforceable by law. For
an agreementto be legally binding, several ingredients have to be there. These ingredients
are:
J. 
K.  Agreement 
L. : There should be two parties that have agreed to certain terms, theofferor and
the offeree.
M. 
N. Intention
O. : The two parties to the contract must be willing to perform their dutiesunder the
contract.
P. 
Q. Capacity 
R. : The parties to he contract must have the legal capacity to perform or make
good on their responsibilities under the contract.
S. 
T. Consideration
U. : There has to be a price for the promise to be performed under thecontract. The
consideration can, therefore, be in the form of interest, or a benefitto the
promisor; or a loss, sufferance, detriment, etc. to the promisee; or both indue
course of the contract performance. Consideration needs not be
adequate.N e v e r t h e l e s s ,   i t   m u s t   b e   s u f f i c i e n t .   I n   t h i s   r e s p e c t ,   a
n y t h i n g   t h a t   h a s   g o t economic value in the eye of the Law can be
seen as to constitute sufficientconsideration for contract purposes
V. .
W. 
X. Free consent:
Y. The parties must not be forced to enter into a contract; they mustact out of their
own free will and not out of compulsion.
Z. 
AA. Not declared void by the Law of Contract Act 
BB. : All terms of the contract must belegal, and they must therefore abide by the
Laws of the Country (in Tanzania, weare governed by the Law of Contract Act, 2002).
CC. Offer and Acceptance:
DD. These are two of the most vital elements of a contract.
EE.3
FF.  
GG. An Offer 
HH. An
II. offer 
JJ. can be described as "an expression of willingness to contract on certain terms,made with
the intention that it shall become legally binding as soon as it is accepted bythe person to
 whom it is addressed", the "offeree".The "expression" referred to in the definition may take
different forms, such as a letter,newspaper, fax, email and even by conduct, as long as it
communicates the basis onwhich the offeror is prepared to contract.Whether two parties
have an agreement or a valid offer is an issue which is determinedby the court using the
Objective test. Therefore the "intention" referred to in thedefinition is objectively judged by
the courts. In the English case of 
KK. Smith v. Hughes
LL.(1871), the court emphasised that the important thing is not a party's real intentions buthow
a reasonable person would view the situation. This is due mainly to common senseas
each party would not wish to breach his side of the contract if it would make him or her
culpable to damages, it would especially be contrary to the principle of certainty andclarity
in commercial contract and the topic of mistake and how it affects the contract.The
classical principles are illustrated in the well-known case of 
MM. Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893)
NN. .
OO. Case facts
PP. :
QQ. The defendants, Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Ltd., inserted ads in various papers
offering topay £100 to any person who contracted influenza after using the smoke ball
(their invention/product which was supposed to be a cure for influenza) three times a day
for two weeks. In addition, the defendants had deposited £1000 at the Bank for
thatpurpose. Carlill, a lady, used the ball as advertised, and was attacked by
influenzaduring the course of treatment. She sued for £100.Defendant’s court defences,
and the court decisions were:
RR. 
SS. The company argued that the offer was not specific because no time limit
wasstipulated in which the user was to contract influenza.
TT.The court decided: that it
UU. 4
VV.  
WW. must have been the intention that the ball would protect its user during the periodof
its use.
XX. 
YY. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. claimed that there was no consideration.
ZZ.The court heldthat: using this inhalant three times a day for three weeks or
more was sufficientconsideration.
AAA. 
BBB. The Company
argued that the matter was an just an advert “puff”
w i t h   n o intention to create legal relations.
CCC. The court ruled: that the deposit of £1000 at the bank was a clear
evidence of an intention to pay claims.
DDD. 
EEE. It was also argued that there was no communication of acceptance:
FFF. To this thecourt held: that looking at reward cases, contracts of this
kind, acceptance maybe by conduct.
GGG. 
HHH. It was further suggested that this was an attempt to contract the whole world
and this was not possible in English law.
III. To this the court held: that the advertisementwas an offer to the whole world and
that, by no analogy with the reward cases, itwas possible to make an offer of this
kind.
JJJ.Acceptance
KKK. Under the Law of Contract Act, 2002 s.2(1)(b) – Acceptance is defined as an
assent tothe proposal by the person to whom it was made. Literary, the section states that
“whenthe person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal
issaid to be accepted, and a proposal, when accepted, becomes a promise”.For there to
be a valid contract, the offer has to be proved and it must be satisfied thatthe offeree has
accepted the offer.
LLL. General Rules of Acceptance•
MMM. Acceptance must be firm and final:
NNN. The offeree must give a firm and final assent statement that will show
his/her acceptance, willingness and commitment to the terms of the offer as they
werepresented to him/her.
OOO. 5
PPP.  
QQQ. •
RRR. The acceptance must be communicated:
SSS. Depending on the construction of the contract, the acceptance may not have to
comeuntil the notification of the performance of the conditions in the offer as in Carlill's
case,but nonetheless the acceptance must be communicated. Prior to acceptance, an
offer may be withdrawn.
TTT. •
UUU. An offer can only be accepted by the offeree:
VVV. An offer can only be accepted by the person to whom the offer was made. An
offeree isnot bound if another person accepts the offer on his behalf without his
authorisation asper agency law.
WWW. •
XXX. An Offer must be in response to the proposal:
YYY. This means that the person accepting the offer must have knowledge
of the proposalbefore accepting it. A person with no knowledge of offer cannot accept it.
On top of that,acceptance must have been induced by the offer.
ZZZ. For example
AAAA. , Bob advertises in thelocal radio that he has lost his passport
and adequately gives the details (such as passport number, date of
issue, place of issue, expiry date, etc.) and specifies that aperson who finds
and returns it shall get a reward of TShs. 200,000. Charlie, who did not know
of the reward because he did not hear the advert, found the passport
andreturned it to the rightful owner. In this case there is no acceptance and
Charlie cannotrightfully claim the reward.
BBBB. •
CCCC. Acceptance must be in the specified form:
DDDD. It may be implied from the construction of the contract that the offeror has
dispensedwith the requirement of communication of acceptance. If the offer specifies a
method of acceptance (such as by post or fax), you must accept it using the method
specified.Silence cannot be construed as acceptance.
EEEE. •
FFFF. Correspondence with offer:
GGGG. The "
HHHH. mirror image rule
IIII. " states that if you are to accept an offer, you must accept anoffer 
JJJJ. exactly how it is
KKKK. , without modifications; if you change the offer in any way, this is a
LLLL. counter-offer 
MMMM. that kills the original offer. However, a mere request for information is not
NNNN. 6
OOOO.  
PPPP. a counter-offer. It may be possible to draft an enquiry such that it adds to the terms
of the contract while keeping the original offer alive.
QQQQ. •
RRRR. Revocation of an offer shoud be done before acceptance:
SSSS. An offeror may revoke an offer before it has been accepted, but the revocation
must becommunicated to the offeree, although not necessarily by the offeror. If the offer
wasmade to the entire world, such as in Carlill's case, the revocation must take a form
thatis similar to the offer. However, an offer may not be revoked if it has been
encapsulatedin an option in
TTTT. option contracts
UUUU. .If the offer is one that leads to a unilateral contract, then unless there was an
ancillarycontract entered into that guaranteed that the main contract would not be
withdrawn, thecontract may be revoked at any time:
VVVV. Why do we need the ‘general rules’ of acceptance?
WWWW. There have to be general rules of acceptance, mainly because:
XXXX. 
YYYY. There might be substantial hardship on offeror if bound by terms without knowingif
this offer was actually accepted by the offeree.
ZZZZ. 
AAAAA. It is practical – some outward sign of acceptance is needed if courts are todecide if
contract really exists.It should be noted that acceptance has to be
BBBBB. communicated 
CCCCC. AND
DDDDD. received 
EEEEE. for there tobe a contract. More discussions on this aspect are to be discussed later
in this paper.
FFFFF. Communication of acceptance as per Tanzanian Law of Contract Act, 2002
GGGGG. Sec. 4 (1 – 2) of The Tanzanian Contract Law, the Law of Contract Act 2002,
stipulatesthat “The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the
knowledge of the person to whom it is made. It further states that, the communication of
anacceptance is complete -
HHHHH. 7
IIIII.

JJJJJ.  
KKKKK. 
LLLLL. as against the proposer, when it is put in a course of transmission to him, so asto
be out of the power of the acceptor;
MMMMM. 
NNNNN. as against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer.The
above mentioned sections of the Act are vividly seen as being based on themailbox rule,
taking post as the main method of written communication. (the mailboxrule is discussed
hereinafter). It can be seen that the Law of Contract Act, 2002, has lefta lacuna as far as
the instantaneous modes of communication are concerned.
OOOOO. Effective Acceptance Communication
PPPPP. The process of contract formation is, essentially, a process of communication. A
simpledefinition in social sciences is that "communication is the effective transmission of
amessage." From the perspective of electronic acceptance examples of
failedcommunication may include email messages which have been corrupted,
electronicdocuments which cannot be opened without specific software, and failure of an
internetservice provider (“ISP”) to deal properly with and route an electronic message.The
courts have developed various strategies to allocate to the recipient the risk as towhether
an acceptance is actually received (in relation to paper contracts), in order togive some
protection to the sending party who will not be aware there is a problem withhis message
until it is too late.Perhaps the best known of these strategies is the “postal rule” whereby a
postedacceptance will be deemed to have been communicated when it has been posted
rather than when it is received. However, these strategies were developed in a world
whereinstantaneous communication was not possible. As faster communication becomes
thenorm, the protection offered by the postal rules has been reduced for others forms
of communication. For example, faxes are communicated when received rather than
 whensent, although they need not have been read, or even printed if the fax machine
cansave faxes to its memory, as it was in the case of 
QQQQQ.  Anson -v- Trump.
RRRRR.  
SSSSS. 8
TTTTT.  
UUUUU. Dominance of the
VVVVV. Mailbox rule (Postal acceptance rule)
WWWWW. As a rule of convenience, if the offer is accepted by post, the contract
comes intoexistence at the moment that the acceptance was posted. Posting binds the
Offeror,and when the acceptance comes to the knowledge of the Offeror, the Offeree
becomesbound by the terms of the contract. This rule only applies when, impliedly or
explicitly,the parties have in contemplation post as a means of acceptance.The Common
Law position is that both the Offeror and Offeree become irrevocablybound when the
acceptance letter is posted in due course. The phrase “
XXXXX. in due course
YYYYY. ”means that the letter must be properly addressed, adequately stamped, and
posted. Incase the letter gets lost while in transit, the parties continue to be bound by the
terms of the contract.For quite a while, post has been regarded as the main form of written
communication.This has been so for the time when other written communication methods,
such as faxand email, have not been in existence.The Mailbox rule excludes contracts
involving land, letters incorrectly addressed andinstantaneous modes of communication,
which is the main concern of this paper.
ZZZZZ. Instantaneous Communication
AAAAAA. With the development of Information and Communication Technology
(ICT), here camenew and faster modes of communication, such as telephones (land lines
and mobilephones), fax, telex and email. Such methods have made the globe look like
one village,enabling instant delivery of voice and data (text) communication.
Generally,Instantaneous forms of communication do not fall under the mailbox rule.
Acceptanceby these methods is, therefore, only valid
BBBBBB. when the message is received 
CCCCCC. .Reasoning with instantaneous communication is that people should consider
thesituation as if the parties are in each other’s presence.
DDDDDD. 9
EEEEEE.  
FFFFFF. Place of Contract
GGGGGG. The place of contract is governed by the place of acceptance of the offer;
and
HHHHHH. acceptance takes place at the place where it is received 
IIIIII. . Where acceptance iscommunicated by letter it is regarded as received at the
place of 
JJJJJJ.  posting 
KKKKKK. rather than atthe place of actual receipt. This is because, once a letter has
been posted, the PostOffice holds it on behalf of the addressee. Where telephone
communication is used theplace of acceptance is the place where the recipient of the
acceptance is. That is thegeneral rule for instantaneous communication. It would apply
also to an acceptancesent by
LLLLLL. telex 
MMMMMM. or 
NNNNNN. fax 
OOOOOO. directly from the acceptor's office to the offeror's office. The generalrule
may need qualifying when a cable company's services are used. A telegram like aletter is
regarded as received when put into the hands of the Post Office.
PPPPPP. Acceptance of an Offer by Fax:
QQQQQQ. If you accept an offer by fax, it will probably bedeemedto be accepted as it is
printedout by the offeror's fax machine, whether or not there is anyone there to receive it. In
RRRRRR. NM Superannuation Pty Limited v. Hughes (1992)
SSSSSS. , a decision of the New South WalesSupreme Court, Cohen J held that if a fax is
left switched on its owner is indicating their preparedness to receive messages on it and in
such circumstances it was sufficient for a notice to be communicated by fax, even though
the document might arrive outsidenormal business hours. The same principles probably
apply to other electronic means of communications, such as email but these have so far
not been tested in a court.Basically, acceptance must be communicated effectively. Where
timing is, or may becritical, you should agree on a method of acceptance and its timing at
the beginning.Various complications can arise with regard to whether offer/acceptance
sent duringoffice hours. In the case of the Brimnes (1975), notice of withdrawal sent by fax
 duringoffice hours but not seen by staff until the following Monday. The Court held that
thecontract became effective when the message was received. Possible factor was
staff’snegligence. Conversely if sent outside office hours, acceptance will be effective from
thefirst new day. Some problems might also arise if the fax machine that has run out of 
TTTTTT. 10
UUUUUU.
VVVVVV.  
WWWWWW. paper and cannot store messages electronically? In this case, is there a
contract?Acceptance will not have been effectively communicated, and therefore no
contract!
XXXXXX. Acceptance of an Offer by Telephone:
YYYYYY. In any contract, there has to be effective communication. Acceptance is,
therefore, notcommunicated until such time as the acceptance actually comes to the
attention of theparty to whom it is directed.There are no real problems when acceptance is
given verbally, face-to-face or bytelephone. But what about acceptance by less direct
means? If communication is`instantaneous' (e.g., telephone), then acceptance does not
occur when thecommunication is made, but when it is received. Of course, these events
are legallycontemporaneous, but it is possible for communication to fail during acceptance,
andno-one should have to be bound by an acceptance that he has not heard.Therefore, if
a case occurs that acceptance is attempted by telephone but the line isvery poor and the
acceptance is not heard, it will be concluded that acceptance was noteffectively
communicated. Therefore, no enforceable agreement came into being.
ZZZZZZ. Acceptance of an Offer by Telex:
AAAAAAA. In the case of Entores v Miles Far East Corporation (1995), the defendants
were inLondon, while the plaintiffs were in USA with agents in Amsterdam. Both parties
hadtelex. Plaintiffs placed order by telex, agent accepted by telex. The dispute arose
andplaintiffs sued for breach of contract. The Court held same as if in each
other’spresence. Thus contract formed when acceptance received in LondonWith regard
to acceptance of a bilateral contract between two companies, a certainstandard of conduct
is expected from the offeror. As suggested in the Entores Case itwas said that this principle
could apply where an offer is accepted by telephone and theofferor did not catch the words
of acceptance but did not ask for the words to be
BBBBBBB. 11
CCCCCCC.  
DDDDDDD. repeated and in the BRIMNES case (1975) where acceptance is sent by
Telex duringbusiness hours, but is simply not read by anyone in the Offeror’s office.As in
the case of 

EEEEEEE. Brinkibon Ltd v SSUSM,

FFFFFFF. a situation whereby an instantaneous modeof communication is used (e.g. telex
sent from Tanzania to Kenya), the time and placeof acceptance is the time and place of
actual communication (in this case, Kenya). The
GGGGGGG. Entores
HHHHHHH. case is used as authority in this situation.
IIIIIII. Acceptance of an Offer by email:
JJJJJJJ. The main question arising when considering acceptance through email is that
“Does E-Mail Fall Under the Mailbox Rule?” The Tanzanian Law of Contact is silent on
thismatter, and the courts in other countries have not clearly decided whether an
KKKKKKK. acceptance by e-mail becomes valid when successfully sent (i.e.
when received)
LLLLLLL. .I concur with this suggestion: Chitty on Contracts suggest that emails
should be dealtwith in the same way as faxes as, like faxes, emails are a form of
instantaneouscommunication. However, an email message is communicated
MMMMMMM. when it is available to beread 
NNNNNNN. . In my experience this would be from the time it was transferred to the
recipient’sInternet Service Provider (ISP), wherever that may be, wherever the server
locationmay be.All in all, to form a binding contract, acceptance must be given
unequivocally (i.e. clearlyand without ambiguity) and it must be communicated to the
person making the offer. Inestablishing whether electronic acceptance has been
communicated unequivocally it isimportant to understand
OOOOOOO. when acceptance will take place
PPPPPPP. ,
QQQQQQQ. the method of communication of acceptance
RRRRRRR. , and
SSSSSSS. what happens when electronic messages aresent 
TTTTTTT. . Emphasis is hereby put on acceptance by email, but other electronic
messages(such as filling in an online form) will raise the same issues.
UUUUUUU. 12
VVVVVVV.  
WWWWWWW. As noted earlier, instantaneous forms of communication such as email
communications
XXXXXXX. do not
YYYYYYY. fall under the mailbox rule. Acceptance by email is, therefore, only valid
whenthe message is received; or when the offeror, in whatever method, comes to
theknowledge that the offer has been accepted.Article 24 of the United Nations
Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), which was drafted
back in 1980, defines a message to have "reached"the addressee if it has been made
orally to him or delivered by any other means to himpersonally to his place of business or
to his mailing address. As today's means of electronic communications did not exist at the
time of the drafting of the CISG, the CISGdoes not contain a definition for the "reaching"
requirement of e-mails and other electronic communications. The CISG-AC Opinion No. 1
clearly states that the "place"of an email has to be understood in a functional rather than a
physical way. Therefore,the message could be on any server in the world and still have
reached the addressee'splace of business as long as he would have been able to retrieve
it. Consequently, for an e-mail to "reach" the addressee, it is enough for the e-mail to enter
the addressee'sserver. It is not important if the addressee has actually read it, or maybe
even could notread it due to technical problems, as it is within the addressee's "sphere of
influence" toprovide for adequate means to ensure that his internal communication
functionssatisfactorily.However, according to the CISG-AC's opinion, the addressee of an
electronic messagehas to have somehow consented to receiving such communications
and, morespecifically, to receiving them in that format and to that address. Explicit consent
is notnecessary and contract interpretation, as well as practices and usages, may help
indetermining the existence of such consent.A further complication concerns whether the
acceptance message can be read by therecipient in the same way as it was sent (a
problem which applies equally tocommunicating acceptance and which I shall consider
below).
ZZZZZZZ. 13
AAAAAAAA.  
BBBBBBBB. Take, for example, a party to a dispute who sends an email to the claimant
intending tomake a counter-offer for TShs. 10,000 but the message is corrupted and
 states insteadthat he will settle for TShs. 1,000. Is the email in fact a counter-offer, as it was
intendedto be, or an acceptance giving rise to an enforceable agreement? In the case of 
CCCCCCCC. Henkel -v- Pape
DDDDDDDD. in 1870 dealt with a garbled telegram message where a seller had offered
50rifles and the buyer sent a telegram saying
EEEEEEEE. “send three rifles”
FFFFFFFF. . This arrived at theseller as
GGGGGGGG. “send the rifles”
HHHHHHHH. . The court held that the buyer was only liable to buy threerifles and that the
risk of garbled messages lay with the seller as he had the risk of a lostacceptance. The
principle should be the same for electronic communications but maybe different if the party
making the offer does not take the risk of communication by, for example, specifying when
acceptance is communicated. In which case the respondentmay be forced to take the risk
in communication reversing the outcome in
IIIIIIII. Henkel -v-Pape.
JJJJJJJJ. The notion of "Writing"
KKKKKKKK. Generally, the CISG, in Article 11, grants complete freedom of forms. For
the conclusionof a contract, i.e. offer and acceptance, it contains no formal requirements.
However,several countries have declared reservations to this provision and the CISG
mentionsthe concept several times. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the
concept,especially in regard to electronic communications.The Convention provides in
Article 13 that "[f]or the purpose of this convention "writing"includes telegram and telex." At
the time of its drafting, the Convention's notion of written communication was extended to
cover the fastest means of documenttransmission then available: telegram and telex. No
telefax was mentioned, and, of course, no e-mail. As has been briefly mentioned, e-mail
and telefax, being means of instantaneous communication, could be compared to telex in
this regard.Opinion No. 1 now extends the notion of "writing" as follows: "The term "writing"
alsoincludes any electronic communication retrievable in perceivable form." In its
commentto Article 13, the Advisory Council says that the prerequisite of "writing" is fulfilled
as
LLLLLLLL. 14
MMMMMMMM.  
NNNNNNNN. long as the electronic communication is able to fulfill the same function as a
paper message, i.e., that it can be saved (retrieved) and understood (perceived).
OOOOOOOO. Problems with Automated Responses
PPPPPPPP. There may occur problems that are related to automated reply to orders
placed on their website which acted as
QQQQQQQQ. acceptance
RRRRRRRR. . If the information on the website was incorrect andthe automated
response accepted an offer to sell goods at far below the intended price,would there be a
valid contract? This is one of two problems raised by electronicacceptance which could
come under the generic heading “
SSSSSSSS. computers being too clever for their own good 
TTTTTTTT. ”.The second problem is another form of automatic reply. Some email
systems are set upsuch that they automatically return emails if they detect what they
believe to be avirus/Trojan horse/spyware. The question is (in cases when the returned
email was anacceptance) whether that acceptance had been communicated or not?
UUUUUUUU. Concluding Remarks:
VVVVVVVV. Times have changed. The Law of Contract Act, 2002 does not cope with
therequirements of the development in Information and Communication technology. It
isadvisable that the Law be revised to incorporate the needs of the modern-day
life,especially in business relations and e-commerce. There are challenges to
thesuccessful incorporation of ICT elements in our legal system, but if we don’t
manypeople might use the loophole to defraud others and possibly get away with it. It is
nowor never. We cannot rely on cases decided in foreign countries while we have our
ownContract Law. We need to equip ourselves with the requisite knowledge on ICT,
andamend our laws accordingly, not just the Law of Contract Act.
WWWWWWWW. 15
XXXXXXXX.  
YYYYYYYY. References
ZZZZZZZZ. 1 . T h e   L a w   o f   C o n t r a c t   A c t ,   2 0 0 2 2
.United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of
Goods(CISG): 1980.
AAAAAAAAA. 3.
BBBBBBBBB. E-Commerce and Development Report 2001
CCCCCCCCC. , the UNCTAD Secretariat.
DDDDDDDDD. 4.
EEEEEEEEE. Précis 1990 – 2002,
FFFFFFFFF. Findings and Recommendations from OEDEvaluations
GGGGGGGGG. (Operations Evaluation Department of the World
Bank).5.Collins dictionary of business law, Collins, Glasgow, 1988
HHHHHHHHH. 6.
IIIIIIIII. S. Kähkönen, Y. Lee, P. Meagher, and H. Semboja,
JJJJJJJJJ. Contracting Practicesin an African Economy: Industrial Firms and Suppliers in
Tanzania
KKKKKKKKK. , Center for Institutional Reform and the Informal Sector, University of
Maryland, CollegePark , 2001.
LLLLLLLLL. 7.
MMMMMMMMM. Keeping M.,
NNNNNNNNN. Communication of Acceptance in the wake of new technology 
OOOOOOOOO. ,Oxford Brookes University, September 1996.
PPPPPPPPP. 8.
QQQQQQQQQ. Ganmg, I.N. and H.A. Khan (1991),
RRRRRRRRR. Contracts in the Modern Day  Africa
SSSSSSSSS. ,
TTTTTTTTT. Journal of Business Law 
UUUUUUUUU. , Vol. 24, pp. 355-369.
VVVVVVVVV. 9.
WWWWWWWWW. Kolah A., Offer and acceptance in the virtual world: An In depth
analysisfor the marcomms industry, Brand Republic, 2003.
XXXXXXXXX. 10.
YYYYYYYYY. Ben-Elijah G.,
ZZZZZZZZZ.  Acceptance and communication of an offer 
AAAAAAAAAA., University of CapeTown, 2005.
BBBBBBBBBB. 11.
CCCCCCCCCC. Horne R.,
DDDDDDDDDD.Electronic Acceptance
EEEEEEEEEE. , University of Maryland, College Park, 2002
FFFFFFFFFF. 12.
GGGGGGGGGG.McKendrick E.,
HHHHHHHHHH.Contract Law 
IIIIIIIIII. . (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000) fourth edition[ISBN 0 3337 9427 3].
JJJJJJJJJJ. 13.
KKKKKKKKKK.Poole, J.
LLLLLLLLLL. Casebook on Contract Law 
MMMMMMMMMM. . (London: Blackstone, 2001) fifth edition[ISBN 1 8417 4217 1].
NNNNNNNNNN.14.Hahnkamper W., Acceptance of an offer in light of
Electronic Communications
OOOOOOOOOO., Journal of Law and Commerce, Issue no. 06, 2005,
PPPPPPPPPP. 16
QQQQQQQQQQ.  
RRRRRRRRRR. Web resources
SSSSSSSSSS. 15.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Instantaneous Communication
TTTTTTTTTT. 16.
UUUUUUUUUU. http://www.oecd.org/contracts
VVVVVVVVVV. 17