A woman offers to sell her office printer to a friend for $450. The offer states that acceptance can be mailed to the woman's business address, and that the friend should let her know within a couple weeks. The friend immediately accepts by mailing to the woman's home address. The woman only checks her home mailbox once a week and does not see the acceptance; she then sells the printer to another buyer. Will the friend succeed in an action for breach of contract?

• A. Yes, because the woman did not specify that mailing an acceptance to her business address was the only mode of acceptance.
• B. No, because the acceptance was mailed to the home address.
• C. Yes, because acceptance by mail is always valid.
• D. No, because the friend waited too long.

Answer: (D)

The basic idea here is that an offer can set both the method of acceptance and a deadline, and the offeree must meet those terms for a contract to form. Acceptance is effective only if it complies with the mode the offer invites and, if the offer conditions a time frame for communicating acceptance, those communications must occur within that window.

In this scenario, the offer says acceptance can be mailed to the business address and that the friend should inform the offeror within about two weeks. Even though the friend mailed an acceptance promptly, it was directed to the home address, not the business address, so the required mode wasn’t followed. More importantly, the offer’s condition about informing the offeror within two weeks cannot be satisfied if the acceptance isn’t received (and thus isn’t communicated to the offeror) within that window. Because the required method and timing weren’t met, no contract was formed, and there’s no breach to sue over.

If acceptance had been properly mailed to the business address within the two-week period, the mailbox rule could apply (acceptance effective on dispatch). But here the failure to meet the specified mode and the timing condition means there is no contract.