The issue arises in this case is whether an offeror can be legally bound in the event if the offeree revert and accept to the original offer after they have changed the terms of the original offer and bounce it back for the offeror to accept.
In order to determine whether an offeror can be legally bound after offeree changes the terms of the original offer and then revert back to original offer, we need to consider the rule of acceptance. According to s.7(a) of Contracts Act 1950, “In order to convert a proposal into a promise the acceptance must be absolute and unqualified.” In other words, an offeree must agree with all terms introduced by the offeror. In the case if an offeree only accepts some but not all of the terms introduced by the offeror and add new terms of the original offer, it is treated as the rejection of the original proposal, unless the proposal prescribes the manner in which it is to be accepted. As stated in the s 7(b) of Contracts Act1950, acceptance must be expressed in some usual and reasonable manner. In the case if the offeree diverges from the prescribed form, the offeror must not keep silent. If he does so and fails to insist upon the prescribed manner, he is considered as having accepted the acceptance in the modified manner. The term of implied rejection is appropriate when an offeree accepts a proposal on new terms not contained in the proposal, which is also called as counter offer. The consequence is the original offer ceases to exist.
However, according to s.2(h) of the Contracts Act 1950, contract has been defined as “an agreement enforceable by the law”. Contract is an agreement between two or more parties that is legally binding between them. Agreement happens if there is meeting of mind between the parties and there must have been an offer and acceptance of that offer in this light. Therefore, if the offeree only accepts some