Also known as: despatches · despatched · despatching · dispatch · dispatches · dispatched · dispatching
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The sending of an acceptance or other message. An acceptance sent by mail or similar means from a distance is operative upon dispatch only if properly addressed and accompanied by the precautions ordinarily observed to ensure safe transmission of similar messages. When an acceptance is seasonably dispatched but the offeree uses an uninvited means of transmission or fails to exercise reasonable diligence, it remains operative upon dispatch if received within the time a properly dispatched acceptance would normally arrive.
Dustin Donovan mailed an acceptance to Duarte Shipping but used an outdated corporate address listed on an old letterhead. The letter never reached the correct office. Because the acceptance was not properly addressed, it did not become operative upon dispatch and no contract formed when the letter was sent.
Denise Donovan sent her acceptance of Delta Dynamics' offer by overnight courier instead of the invited first-class mail. She failed to include a tracking number. The acceptance arrived within the normal mail window, so it was treated as operative upon dispatch despite the uninvited method.
Duarte Shipping mailed an acceptance of Desert Oil's charter offer using the invited method. The letter was properly addressed and posted before any revocation. Dispatch made the acceptance operative, forming the charter party at the moment of mailing.
Transatlantic Financing Corporation, the operator of the SS CHRISTOS, entered into a voyage charter with the United States on October 2, 1956, for the carriage of a full cargo of wheat from a United States Gulf port to a safe port in Iran. The charter specified the points of origin and destination but did not indicate the route to be taken. On July 26, 1956, the Government of Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal Company. During the ensuing international crisis, on October 27, 1956, the SS CHRISTOS sailed from Galveston on a course that would have taken her through the Suez Canal. Israel invaded Egypt on October 29, 1956, followed by invasions of the Suez Canal Zone by Great Britain and France on October 31, 1956. On November 2, 1956, the Egyptian Government closed the Suez Canal to traffic by obstructing it with sunken vessels. After the closure, Transatlantic's representative contacted an employee of the United States Department of Agriculture on or about November 7, 1956, to request instructions on the cargo and to seek additional compensation for a voyage around the Cape of Good Hope. The ship changed course and arrived in Bandar Shapur, Iran, on December 30, 1956. Transatlantic later filed a libel against the United States in the District Court seeking recovery of the costs attributable to the diversion around the Cape of Good Hope. The District Court dismissed the libel, and Transatlantic appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
View caseDiana Delgado mailed a signed confidentiality agreement to a newspaper after receiving an offer of anonymity. The letter was properly addressed and seasonably sent. Because the acceptance was properly dispatched, contract formation occurred upon mailing.
On October 27, 1982, during the closing days of the Minnesota gubernatorial election campaign, Dan Cohen separately approached Lori Sturdevant of the Star Tribune and Bill Salisbury of the Pioneer Press Dispatch. Cohen, a political associate of IR candidate Wheelock Whitney, offered each reporter copies of two public court records concerning DFL lieutenant governor candidate Marlene Johnson: a 1969 record of three counts of unlawful assembly that were dismissed and a 1970 record of a petit theft conviction that was vacated about a year later. Cohen requested and received promises from both reporters that he would be treated as an anonymous source. His name would not appear in any material connected with the documents. The reporters would not pursue questions about his source. The reporters were experienced and covering the gubernatorial election. They knew Cohen as an active Republican associated with the Wheelock Whitney campaign and promised to keep his identity confidential, intending to honor that promise at the time it was made. Cohen also met with reporters from the Associated Press and WCCO-TV, who likewise promised anonymity and received the documents. The Associated Press published the story while honoring its promise, while WCCO-TV did not run the story. After receiving the documents, both newspapers interviewed Johnson for her explanation. The Star Tribune assigned a reporter to locate the original court records, discovering that another Whitney supporter had checked them out the previous day. Editors at both the Star Tribune and the Pioneer Press Dispatch independently decided to publish the stories while identifying Cohen as the source. On October 28, 1982, both newspapers published stories about Johnson's arrests and convictions. Both articles published Cohen's name, along with denials by the regular Whitney campaign officials of any connection with the published stories. The Pioneer Press Dispatch quoted Johnson as saying the release of the information was a last-minute smear campaign. Cohen was fired from his job at a Minneapolis advertising firm the same day. The Star Tribune subsequently published a column and cartoon criticizing Cohen's tactics. Cohen sued Northwest Publications, Inc., publisher of the Pioneer Press Dispatch, and Cowles Media Company, publisher of the Star Tribune, for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract. The trial court ruled that the First Amendment did not bar the claims. The jury found liability on both claims and awarded Cohen $200,000 in compensatory damages jointly and severally against the defendants plus $250,000 in punitive damages against each defendant. The court of appeals upheld the jury's finding of a breach of contract and affirmed the award of $200,000 compensatory damages. The Minnesota Supreme Court granted petitions for further review from all parties.
View caseDanielle Dixon sent a written acceptance of a proposed living arrangement to her relatives by regular mail. The letter was properly addressed and posted before any revocation arrived. Dispatch made the acceptance operative, locking in the arrangement under the applicable formation principles.
In early 1973, Mrs. Inez Moore received a notice of violation from the city of East Cleveland. The notice stated that her grandson John Moore, Jr., was an illegal occupant of her home. It directed her to comply with the housing ordinance. Mrs. Moore lived in her East Cleveland home together with her son Dale Moore, Sr., and her two grandsons Dale Moore, Jr., and John Moore, Jr. John came to live with her after his mother's death when he was less than one year old. When she failed to remove John from the home, the city filed a criminal charge against her. Mrs. Moore moved to dismiss the charge. She claimed that the ordinance was constitutionally invalid on its face. Her motion was overruled. Upon conviction she was sentenced to five days in jail and a $25 fine. The East Cleveland ordinance limited occupancy of a dwelling unit to members of a single family. The ordinance defined family to include only a husband or wife of the nominal head of the household, unmarried children of the head or spouse provided they have no children residing with them, a parent of the head or spouse, or not more than one dependent child of the head or spouse along with that child's spouse and dependent children. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction after giving full consideration to her constitutional claims. The Ohio Supreme Court denied review of the case. The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction of her appeal.
View caseAn acceptance sent by mail or similar means is operative upon dispatch only when it is properly addressed and the sender takes the precautions ordinarily observed to ensure safe transmission. If those conditions are not met, dispatch alone does not create a contract.
Supporting sources
No. When an acceptance is seasonably dispatched but the offeree uses an uninvited means or fails to exercise reasonable diligence, the acceptance is still treated as operative upon dispatch if it arrives within the time a properly dispatched acceptance would normally have arrived.
Supporting sources
The acceptance is not operative when dispatched. Proper addressing is a prerequisite for the mailbox rule to apply, so a misaddressed acceptance does not form a contract at the moment of mailing.
Supporting sources