法律英语词汇“acceptance”的翻译、意思、用法、释义-法律词典

acceptance
n. Agreement to the terms of an offer that, provided certain other requirements are fulfilled, converts the offer into a legally binding contract. If the method by which acceptance is to be signified is indicated by the offeror, that method alone will be effective (Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155 (CA)). If it is not, acceptance may be either express (by word of mouth or in writing) or inferred from the offeree’s conduct; for example, if he receives goods on approval and starts to make use of them (Beta Computers (Europe) Ltd v Adobe Systems (Europe) Ltd [1996] FSR 367). The acceptance must always, however, involve some action on the part of the person to whom the offer was made: the offeror cannot assert that his offer will be treated as accepted unless the offeree rejects it (Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 11 CBNS 869). If an offer is made that mirrors the terms of acceptance to an existing offer, then this is a cross-offer and no contract is formed unless this offer is accepted (Tinn v Hoffmann & Co (1873) 29 LT 271). The validity of an acceptance is governed by four principal rules:

1. It must take place while the offer is still in force, i.e. before it has lapsed (see lapse of offer) or been revoked (see revocation of offer).

2. It must be on the same terms as the offer. An acceptance made subject to any variation is treated as a counteroffer.

3. It must be unconditional, thus an acceptance subject to contract is not a valid acceptance.

4. It must be communicated to the offeror and is valid upon reception. The exception is the postal rule whereby acceptance is treated as communicated when the letter is posted (Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681, 106 ER 250), provided that both parties are aware that post is a likely method of communication (Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27 (CA)). This applies also when the letter is lost and not delivered (Household Fire Insurance [1879] 4 Ex D 108) but only if the letter was properly addressed (LJ Korbetis v Transgrain Shipping BV [2005] EWHC 134 (QB)). Telex (Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp [1955] 2 QB 327) and therefore probably electronic messaging (Thomas v BPE Solicitors [2010] EWHC 306) are equated with the telephone, so that acceptance takes place on receipt (but only within business hours) and regardless of whether the person receiving the communication has the authority to act (Brinikbon v Stahag Stahl [1983] 2 AC 34).

However, when the offer consists of a promise to confer a benefit on whoever may perform a specified act, the offeror waives the requirement of communication as a separate act. If, for example, he offers a reward for information, a person able to supply the information is not expected to accept the offer formally. The act of giving the information itself constitutes the acceptance, the communication of the acceptance, and the performance of the contract (New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v Satterthwaite (AM) & Co Ltd [1975] AC 154 (PC)).