Communication of acceptance of a contractual offer by telegram. Contracts made by telegram are in much the same position as those made by posted letter in that, within the scope of the rule, acceptance prima facie dates from the time the telegram of acceptance is given to the Post Office: Bruner v Moore [1904] 1 Ch 305. This rule as to the operative date of the telegraphed acceptance applies wherever there is express or implied permission to accept by telegram: Northland Airlines Ltd v Dennis Ferranti Meters Ltd (1970) 114 Sol Jo 845 (CA). As such, an offer made by telegram may prima facie be accepted by telegram (Holland v Tolley [1952] CPL 34 (CA)), as may an offer made by letter (Bruner v Moore [1904] 1 Ch 305). On the other hand, an offer made by telegram, even a reply-paid telegram, does not necessarily require acceptance by telegram; prima facie it is merely a request for a prompt reply: Read v Anderson (1884) 13 QBD 779 (CA). See also Postal acceptance rule; Telex acceptance.
藉電報傳達對合約要約的承約。藉電報訂立的合約與籍郵寄信件訂立的合約情況大致相同；在這規則的範圍內，承約表面上由將承約的電報給予郵局時計算：Bruner v Moore [1904] 1 Ch 305。凡有明示或隱含籍電報承約的許可，則這有關電報承約的發揮效力日期的原則適用：Northland Airlines Ltd v Dennis Ferranti Meters Ltd (1970) 114 Sol Jo 845 （上訴法院）。因此，藉電報作出的要約表面上可由電報承約 (Holland v Tolley [1952] CPL 34（上訴法院）)，猶如藉信件作出的要約一樣 (Bruner v Moore [1904] 1 Ch 305)。另一方面，藉電報作出的要約不須規定籍電報承約；表面上僅是請求迅速回應：Read v Anderson (1884) 13 QBD 779 (芵國上訴法院)。另見 Postal acceptance rule; Telex acceptance。

• Illegal contract
• Illegal entrant
• Illegal entry
• Illegally obtained evidence
• Illegal promise
• Illegal structure
• Illegitimacy
• Illegitimate child
• Illicit commission
• Ill-treatment
• Illusory appointment
• Illusory trust
• IMF
• Imitation
• Imitation firearm
• Immaterial alteration
• Immediate cause
• Immediate gift
• Immediate holding company
• Time bill
• Time charterparty
• Time costing
• Time extension by consent
• Time fixed for performance
• Time for compliance